Background
The Utah Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in consolidated appeals arising from a wildfire that burned more than 20,000 acres in Box Elder County. The decision focuses on an internally inconsistent special verdict and explains what a trial court must do when a jury’s answers cannot be reconciled. It also gives guidance for the retrial, holding that the landowners adequately pleaded a vicarious-liability theory against Natural Choice, LLC.
Natural Choice leased canyon property from N.W.R. LTD Partnership. In August 2016, Samuel Kingston used a backhoe to knock down thistle on the property, and a fire began in the area he had just cleared. The fire spread to neighboring ranches and other properties. The affected landowners sued NWR and later Natural Choice, alleging negligence and related theories. They also alleged that the entities were alter egos and that the conduct of agents or employees supported liability.
After a nine-day trial, the jury found that both NWR and Natural Choice were negligent and that each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the landowners’ damages. It also found Natural Choice to be NWR’s alter ego. But when asked to allocate fault, the jury assigned 100 percent to NWR and zero percent to Natural Choice. It awarded compensatory damages only against NWR, then awarded $1.185 million in punitive damages against each company. NWR raised the inconsistency while the jury was still empaneled, but the district court declined to seek clarification and later denied a new-trial motion.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster’s opinion held that the verdict could not be harmonized. A finding that Natural Choice was negligent and that its negligence substantially caused damages could not be squared with an allocation of zero percent fault to that company. The alter-ego finding did not solve the problem because the verdict form never asked the jury to distinguish direct fault from responsibility attributed through alter ego. The answers therefore left no unambiguous account of how the jury understood the parties’ respective responsibility.
The court emphasized the practical importance of addressing a possible inconsistency before discharging the jury. While jurors remain empaneled, a judge has discretion to ask what they intended and return the matter for clarification. Once that opportunity is gone, a court must try to reconcile the answers and preserve the verdict if reasonably possible. But when the answers cannot be read harmoniously, the remedy is a new trial. The court vacated the entire verdict rather than attempting to reconstruct the jury’s unstated reasoning.
For the retrial, the court rejected Natural Choice’s argument that the landowners had failed to plead vicarious liability for Kingston’s conduct. Utah follows notice pleading, and the complaint alleged that NWR and Natural Choice, through their agents or employees, ignited the fire while operating the backhoe. Discovery also showed that Natural Choice understood Kingston’s role to be at issue. The pleading was sufficient even though it did not name Kingston or use the phrase respondeat superior in the claim directed at Natural Choice.
Key Takeaways
- A jury cannot find that a defendant’s negligence substantially caused harm while assigning that defendant zero percent fault unless the verdict supplies a legally coherent explanation.
- When counsel identifies a potential inconsistency before the jury is discharged, the trial court can and should consider obtaining clarification while it remains possible.
- Utah notice pleading does not require a complaint to use a particular label when its factual allegations fairly notify a company that it may face vicarious liability for an agent’s conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision gives Utah trial lawyers a concrete reason to audit every special-verdict answer before jurors are released. Counsel should compare negligence, causation, alter-ego, damages, and allocation findings as a single system, then raise any conflict immediately. Proposed verdict forms should also make clear whether allocated fault is direct, derivative, or affected by an alter-ego finding.
Coombs also reinforces the breadth of Utah’s notice-pleading standard. A party may survive a late challenge to an agency theory when the complaint’s factual allegations and the course of discovery gave fair notice, even without perfect terminology. Still, expressly identifying direct and vicarious theories remains the safer drafting practice and can avoid a costly dispute at trial.