Court Opinion

ID: 9760873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:21:07.531139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:18.203747
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring):
{40 I coneur in the court's opinion. I write separately only to expand on the point touched upon in the lead opinion's concluding footnote.
€ 41 It is always problematic for an appellate court to go too far with a point that has not been briefed. See Bailey v. Bayles, 2002 UT 58, ¶ 13 n. 3, 52 P.3d 1158 (recognizing that sua sponte consideration of alternate legal theories or grounds by an appellate court raises "concerns regarding timely and adequate notice and [the] opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way"). But it was recognized at oral argument that (1) the Hospital, although listed as a defendant in the caption, is not a legal entity, but a building owned by defendant IHC; (2) IHC is a corporate entity whose principal office is in Salt *131Lake City; (3) Plaintiffs had the option of bringing their lawsuit in Sevier County, where their cause of action arose, or Salt Lake County, where THC has its "principal office," see Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-807(2) (2008); and (4) Plaintiffs chose Sevier County as their forum.
1 42 As a practical matter, the problems of which Plaintiffs now complain-namely that in a smaller, close-knit community many of the jurors knew many of the local hospital's employees and witnesses-would have been wholly avoided had Plaintiffs instead elected to bring their lawsuit in Salt Lake County. Perhaps Plaintiffs simply missed the fact that they had a choice. Perhaps they realized they had a choice, but for purposes of their own convenience, or to avoid a change-of-venue battle at Defendant's instance, or in hopes of drawing on local sympathy, knowingly opted for the venue where their claim arose rather than the venue where IHC has its principal office.
43 In my view, it would be an absolutely extraordinary case in which a plaintiff, with the option of filing its action in a county which would essentially ensure it an untainted jury pool, opted instead to file in a county where there obviously would be difficulties in picking an impartial jury, and would nonetheless be entitled to judicial rescue when the predictable difficulties played themselves out. This is not such an absolutely extraordinary case.
{44 I refrain from premising my affir-mance vote strictly on this rationale only because I share my colleagues' view that it is ordinarily best to resolve a case on the issues raised and briefed by the parties rather than something that is raised only at oral argument or-worse yet-that is seized upon by the court in the course of post-argument deliberation or research. See Bailey, 2002 UT 58, ¶ 13 n. 3, 52 P.3d 1158 (cautioning that the "affirm on any ground" rule is limited and explaining that even though an alternative theory or ground is apparent to the appellate court, to avoid surprise to the parties, "sound and prudent appellate practice and procedure might dictate that the appellate court afford the parties an opportunity to address and argue an alternate legal theory or ground in supplemental briefs to the court"). Had the parties raised and briefed this issue, however, I am confident it would have provided a much simpler basis on which to premise our affirmance than the more elaborate analysis so ably set forth in the lead opinion.