Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tort Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances substitute on comparative-negligence law after sharp debate over burden and disclosure
Summary
Lawmakers passed a first-substitute to amend Utah’s Comparative Negligence Act to require defendants to disclose known third parties and to set a higher proof standard for unidentified motor vehicles; opponents argued the changes shift burdens onto defendants.
The Utah House approved a first-substitute version of a bill revising the Comparative Negligence Act, a response to the Utah Supreme Court decision in Boyer v. Field. Sponsor Representative Swallow said the substitute restores aspects of the 1986 comparative-fault framework and adds procedures requiring defendants to identify, in their answer, any other parties they know are involved in an injury claim.
Swallow told the chamber the substitute was the product of months of negotiation between plaintiffs’ attorneys and insurers. “If they don't know at the time of the answer, then as soon as is reasonable, they have to let the plaintiff know who they want to give fault to,” he said, explaining the disclosure requirement is intended to prevent defendants from waiting until the statute of limitations runs to reveal another responsible party.
Opponents urged caution. Representative Morgan moved amendments to remove a provision that would require clear-and-convincing evidence in motor-vehicle hit-and-run cases and to put the onus on plaintiffs to identify parties. Morgan warned that a single witness's testimony may not meet a clear-and-convincing standard and said, “I don't think that's fair.” Several members declared conflicts of interest during the debate (attorneys and insurance-affiliated representatives).
The floor defeated the amendment and advanced the first substitute; the House announced the substitute would be referred to the Senate.
