Day v. Panos

DURHAM, Justice:

This is an appeal from the denial of the plaintiffs motion for a new trial under Utah R.Civ.P. 59(a)(2) and (5). Because we find the verdict is a “chance” verdict in violation of Rule 59(a)(2), we reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion for a new trial. We do not, therefore, reach the question of whether a new trial is warranted under Rule 59(a)(5).

In the original action, a dog bite case, the jury’s verdict attributed 74% of the negligence to the plaintiff. The trial judge entered judgment on the verdict of no cause of action. The plaintiff contends the verdict was…