Opinion ID: 1224193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jury instruction regarding resolution of differences between child and deller

Text: The first issue is whether the district court [4] erred in instructing the jury that Child and Deller had resolved their differences. Specifically, Child claims that rule 408 of the Utah Rules of Evidence proscribed any reference to the Child-Deller settlement. He further urges this court to expressly limit the rule of Slusher v. Ospital, 777 P.2d 437, 444 (Utah 1989), where under the facts of that case, we allowed the disclosure to the jurors of the existence and basic content of a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and one of the named defendants. We review challenges to jury instructions under a correctness standard. See Steffensen v. Smith's Mgmt. Corp., 862 P.2d 1342, 1346 (Utah 1993). Rule 408 provides in relevant part: Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Utah R. Evid. 408 (emphasis added). The clear language of rule 408 indicates that the rule is very narrow: it only proscribes evidence regarding an offer or acceptance of valuable consideration in compromising a disputed claim. In the instant case, the trial judge determined that the jury would wonder why Deller was not a defendant in the lawsuit. The judge therefore concluded: I will advise the jury that in this case they will likely be asked to compare the responsibility for the accident of both the defendant and the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was riding ... and that Mr. Deller is not a party to this lawsuit. Mr. Child and Mr. Deller have resolved their differences and they needn't concern themselves about that fact. They just need to concern themselves about the responsibility of the people who were involved, the drivers, period. That's all I'm going to tell them. And there's no reason to go any further than that in discussing the matter at all. (Emphasis added.) In light of the fact that the court did not notify the jury as to an offer or acceptance of any valuable consideration between Child and Deller, rule 408 does not even apply. Therefore, we hold that the court did not err in instructing the jury that they had resolved their differences. Because the court did not disclose the existence of the settlement agreement or its basic content, the rule set forth in Slusher likewise does not apply. We therefore decline Child's invitation to limit that rule.