Opinion ID: 1224193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: directed verdict regarding deller's negligence

Text: Child next argues that the district court erred in granting Gonda's motion for a directed verdict that Deller was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of Mindy's death. We reverse a directed verdict when the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find for the nonmovant. Nay v. General Motors Corp., 850 P.2d 1260, 1263 (Utah 1993) (citations omitted). Child argues that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for reasonable jurors to have concluded that Deller was not negligent. Specifically, he refers to the following evidence in support of his argument: (1) Deller waited at the intersection for approximately 12 seconds before turning into Gonda's path; (2) it was raining; (3) Gonda did not have her lights on; (4) the driver of the vehicle following Gonda testified that she (the driver) probably had her lights on; and (5) an expert witness testified that the vehicle following Gonda's may have created a haloing effect, making it difficult for Gonda's vehicle to be seen. In granting the directed verdict motion, the trial judge stated: There is nothing in this record that would support any conclusion other than Mr. Deller did not see what was there to be seen .... I intend to instruct this jury that they are to consider the conduct of Mr. Deller [and Ms. Gonda], and if they find both of them responsible in any degree, then they are to compare those two, the respective conduct, and give me a percentage, and based upon that, I will determine whether or not there will be an award for the plaintiff.... But clearly, Mr. Deller, in pulling out in front of an immediate hazard, there to be seen, there isn't one ... shred of evidence that would support anything other than failure to be seen.... I understand this haloing effect, but that's not going to get over that hurdle. We agree with the trial court. While the evidence Child offers may help to explain his actions, it does not show that Deller was not negligent. Therefore, even if the trial court had considered all of the evidence Child presented as uncontroverted fact, Child offered no evidence that would convince any reasonable jury that Deller was not negligent. Nevertheless, even if the court erred in granting Gonda's directed verdict motion, Child admits in his brief that the court's determination in this regard did not likely constitute reversible error. As we have stated, we will not reverse a judgment merely because there may have been error; reversal occurs only if the error is such that there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a result more favorable to the complaining party. See Lee v. Mitchell Funeral Home Ambulance Serv., 606 P.2d 259, 261 (Utah 1980). In light of the fact that Child has not even attempted to meet this burden, we cannot grant him a new trial on the basis of the court's alleged error.