Court Opinion

ID: 9558126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:03:12.533052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:20.591197
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent because I cannot agree with the conclusion that the record and transcript contain “sufficient evidence to establish that appellant was the owner or operator of Chris’s,” nor can I agree to going outside the trial record, as the majority does, in an effort to shore up the only, and, in my view, inadequate, evidence relating to the ownership of the business called Chris’s. In short, I think the record is inadequate to support a judgment against Chris L. Petersen.
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff cannot meet its burden of proof by speculation. Alvarado v. Tucker, 2 Utah 2d 16, 268 P.2d 986 (1954). Myrick v. National Saving & Trust Co., 268 A.2d 526 (D.C.App.1970). *1049There must be sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable inference of the truth of the matter charged. Martineau v. Walker, 97 Idaho 246, 542 P.2d 1165 (1972); In re Interest of R.D.S., Colo., 514 P.2d 772 (1973); Kopfinger v. Grand Central Public Market, 60 Cal.2d 852, 37 Cal.Rptr. 65, 389 P.2d 529 (1964).
There is no testimony that Chris Petersen made the sale to Hammon, the driver accompanying plaintiff Yost on the night of the accident. Under the majority opinion, Petersen’s liability is wholly vicarious; it is based solely on the proposition that he was an owner of the business. The only evidence in the record that Chris Petersen is an owner of the business was Carol Petersen’s statement that she worked at “our family business.”
The statement that Carol Petersen worked at the “family business” does not prove that Chris Petersen.was an owner. At best, the statement created the possibility that one or more members of the family owned the business. The mere possibility, however, that any member of the Petersen family may be an owner did not prove that Chris Petersen is an owner of the business. The statement is so susceptible of a variety of meanings that reasonable persons could hardly conclude by a preponderance of evidence that Chris Petersen was the owner of the business in question. Certainly that is a possibility, but a possibility is not sufficient. “A choice of probabilities . . . creates only a base for conjecture, on which a verdict . . . cannot stand.” Alvarado v. Tucker, 2 Utah 2d 16, 19, 268 P.2d 986, 988 (1954).
In tacit recognition of that frailty, the majority reaches outside the trial record for other evidence to support its conclusion. Reliance is placed on an affidavit, filed in support of a motion for summary judgment, and not introduced into evidence at the trial, in which the affiant, Bob Brown, stated that he was “employed by the named defendant [Chris Petersen] on August 31, 1976, at the place of business in Huntsville, Utah, known as Chris’s.” Notwithstanding the reliance on this affidavit, the majority refuses to consider an affidavit of Carol Petersen’s because it was not presented to, nor considered by, the court below. That affidavit includes a copy of Chris’ liquor license, and it is solely in Carol Petersen’s name. In any event, the Brown affidavit makes no significant difference in my view.
In truth, neither affidavit should be considered. In a case that has been tried, it is improper for this Court on appeal to rely on, or even consider, a document which is in the file but not introduced into evidence. “The mere fact that a document is in the file does not permit this court to consider it as being before this court.” Adamson v. Brockbank, 112 Utah 52, 78, 185 P.2d 264, 277 (1947). It is inappropriate for appellate courts to rely on documents not admitted in evidence. Davis v. Long, Mo.App., 521 S.W.2d 7 (1975). We are limited to considering only the trial record and what may be conceded by an adverse party. Harding v. Brown, 144 Ind.App. 528, 247 N.E.2d 536 (1969); State v. Galeener, Mo., 402 S.W.2d 336 (1966); Pretti v. Herre, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 568 (1966); Kliege v. Iowa Employment Security Commission, Iowa, 206 N.W.2d 123 (1973). Nor may a trier of fact, whether judge or jury, consider evidence not properly introduced. Simpson v. Woodham, Fla.App., 332 So.2d 693 (1976). More important, there is no indication that the trial judge in this case did in fact consider the Brown affidavit.
Plaintiffs’ attempt to justify the judgment against Chris Petersen by asserting that Petersen had the burden of proving he was not a proper party, misses the mark. The argument rests on the fact that Petersen erroneously characterized his defense as an affirmative defense. The emphasis on the form of a denial of an allegation is unwarranted in determining which party has the burden of proof. It is the substance of a claim rather than the appellation given it which determines its character. Wells v. Wells, 2 Utah 2d 241, 272 P.2d 167 (1954). The effect of a denial is to place the burden on plaintiff to prove the matters denied. Waite Lumber Co. v. Masid Bros., Inc., 189 Neb. 10, 200 N.W.2d 119 (1972); Schmidt v. Sadri, Nev., 601 P.2d 713 (1979). See also *1050General Ins. Co. of America v. Carnicero Dynasty Corp., Utah, 545 P.2d 502 (1976); Roberts v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 289 Or. 119, 611 P.2d 297 (1980). When an answer raises no new matter, and only places in issue one or more elements of a prima facie case, the defendant, as a general proposition, has no burden of proof.
The inaccurate characterization of a denial as an “affirmative defense” does not shift the burden of proof to defendant.1 See 1A Moore, Federal Practice and Procedure, § .314(3). As stated in Schmitz v. Matthews, 133 Wash. 335, 336, 233 P. 660, 660-661 (1925):
The burden of proof is not upon the defendant to prove any allegation of his affirmative defense, when the affirmative defense, as here, adds nothing to the general denial and raises no affirmative issues .... It is true the issues were confused by appellant having interposed what he saw fit to denominate an affirmative defense, whereas it was nothing more than a general denial. But this is not an invitation to the trial court to commit error; it is merely an opportunity-
By denying that he was a proper party, Petersen placed in issue that aspect of plaintiff’s prima facie case, and the burden was on the plaintiffs to show that Petersen was the owner of Chris’s. In my view, plaintiffs failed to do so.
Plaintiffs betray the weakness of their case by arguing that their “purpose was to sue the entity, Chris’s,” and since Chris Petersen was the “father and head of that family, [he] was properly made a party defendant.” Although a husband once had dominion and control over his wife’s “rights” and responsibility for her “wrongs,” that day is long gone, and it would indeed be startling to fasten vicarious liability on a man because of the business activities of members of his family for the reason that he was the “head of that family.”
To condone what appears to be vicarious liability on the facts of this case is, I think, an abandonment of long-standing principles governing burden of proof and appellate review.
I would reverse.

. Usually the burden shifts when the defense is an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is one which commonly is called a confession and avoidance. It in effect admits, for the purpose of asserting the defense, the allegations of the complaint and seeks to avoid the legal effect of them on the basis of an affirmative justification or excuse. The defense raised by Petersen in this case is hardly an avoidance. The mere denial of plaintiffs allegations in this case simply raises the issue as to Petersen’s liability, a matter which plaintiff necessarily had to prove. That issue could have been raised by nothing more than a simple denial of liability. Asserting the defense under the misnomer of “affirmative defense” is nothing more than harmless surplusage.