Harness v. Smiths Food & Drug CentersAnnotate this Case
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Smith's Food and Drug Centers,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 981418-CA
F I L E D
August 26, 1999
1999 UT App 250 -----
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Anne Stirba
Randall D. Lund and Clayne I. Corey, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark F. James and Paul C. Drecksel, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.
David Harness sued Smith's after he was injured following a fall from a shelf in the backroom of a Smith's grocery store. A jury found Smith's negligent, and awarded Harness $12,000 in medical expenses; $200,000 in general damages for pain and suffering; and $680,000 in lost income, lost earning capacity, and loss of household services. Following entry of judgment, Smith's moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court denied Smith's motion. This appeal followed.
Smith's argues that there are insufficient facts to support the jury's general damage and lost earning capacity damage awards. Because Smith's challenge to the denial of their motions amounts to an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, they "must marshal the evidence in support of the verdict" and then show that the evidence cannot support the verdict. See Hall v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 959 P.2d 109, 111 (Utah 1998).
In this case, Smith's has
made no attempt to marshal the evidence in support of the jury's award
of damages. In fact, all Smith's has done is argue selected facts favorable
to its position. As our supreme court has noted, "[Utah's appellate courts]
do not sit to retry the facts." Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 800 (Utah 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial
of Smith's motions.
Judith M. Billings, Judge
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
James Z. Davis, Judge