Court of Appeals weighs jury-instruction and excluded-damages claims in Holmes v. Smith

At oral argument before the Utah Court of Appeals, attorneys for Emily Holmes and Catherine Smith disputed whether Holmes was entitled to a new trial or alternative relief after the trial court refused an apportionment jury instruction and excluded evidence of certain damages.

Lauren Peck, counsel for appellant Emily Holmes, told the court, “Emily Holmes did not get a fair trial on damages,” and urged that the jury should have been instructed how to apportion damages between injuries caused by the crash and preexisting degenerative changes.

The case centers on whether the district court properly (1) refused a preexisting-conditions/apportionment instruction, (2) excluded evidence and expert opinions about future work life and specialized equipment (a sit–stand “VariDesk”) under Utah Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, and (3) excluded certain medical records and foundational proof under rule 803(6). The…