Court Opinion

ID: 9530741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:03:08.552854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:14.236477
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur, except I concur only in the result in part IIIB and part IV on the ground that the' jury, without objection by any of the defendants, was permitted to render a general verdict. As explained by Justice Stewart and by Justice Zimmerman in his separate opinion, we have held in at least three cases that in such circumstances, we will affirm a general verdict even though one of the causes of action may be infested with error. Leigh Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Isom, 657 P.2d 293 (Utah 1982); Barson v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 682 P.2d 832 (Utah 1984); Cambelt Int’l Corp. v. Dalton, 745 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1987). I dissented to that rule in the first two cases, but acquiesced to it in Cambelt, recognizing that it was now the law in Utah. Under that rule, the award of punitive damages must be sustained, and any error in instruction No. 43 must be viewed as harmless.