Court Opinion

ID: 9550398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:34:57.634115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:29.537564
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Justice
(concurring generally)-
I concur generally but add a reservation. The majority opinion states in response to plaintiff’s assertion that the District Court “. . . failed to instruct the jury as to the legal consequences of its apportionment of negligence” that this point was raised for the fist time on appeal and this Court would therefore not consider it. I agree that failure to present this matter below is fatal.
But I reserve judgment on this issue when properly raised because I believe this Court should reconsider its position announced in McGinn v. Utah Power & Light, 529 P.2d 423 (1974), noted in footnote 15 of the majority opinion, that . . it is prejudicial error if, in a comparative negligence case, the court instructs the jury as to the effect or impact its fact-finding answers, in a special verdict, will have on the outcome of the case”.
STEWART, J.,
concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of WILKINS, J.