Because of the size of verdicts being presently rendered this court has been faced on numerous occasions with discussing the principles involved in this assignment of error. Some concepts were announced in the case of Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande W.R. Co. 117 Utah 57; 213 P.2d 325, but a majority of the court did not concur in the suggested disposition of that case. The line of departure, however, was not on the principles enunciated but because the majority members of this court believed the verdict in that case did not meet the tests necessary to make the principles applicable.
However, if an expert is utilized, the traditional rule of evidence for the introduction of writings would still apply to require that certain statistics, charts, and tables offered into evidence have a proper foundation for their admission. Plant v. Simmons, 321 F. Supp. 735 (D.C. Md. 1970); Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande W.R. Co., 117 Utah 57 213 P.2d 325 (1950); Mitchell v. Arrowhead Freight Lines, 117 Utah 224, 214 P.2d 620 (1950). In this case, we hold that the expert economist's testimony was competent.
Model Utah Jury Instruction 2nd Ed. CV2021, Committee Notes. Phillips v. Dull, No. 2:13-CV-384-PMW, 2017 WL 2589150, at *2 (D. Utah June 13, 2017) (quoting Bennett v.Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co., 213 P.2d 325, 328 (Utah 1950)). Pauly v. McCarthy, 184 P.2d 123, 127-129 (Utah 1947)
Under Utah law "it is almost impossible for a juror to calculate an appropriate reduction or discount without the assistance of a mathematically computed table." Bennett v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co., 213 P.2d 325, 328 (Utah 1950). However, contrary to Defendants' assertion, it does not necessarily require expert testimony.
The question asking the actuarial expert to make a calculation based on no wage increases was clearly a proper question, the answer to which was admissible in the courts of this state and in most other jurisdictions. Southern Railway Co. v. Stallings (1959), 268 Ala. 463, 107 So.2d 873; Emery v. Southern California Gas Co. (1946), 72 Cal.App.2d 821, 165 P.2d 695; Allendorf v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Co. (1956), 8 Ill.2d 164, 133 N.E.2d 288; Von Tersch v. Ahrendsen (1959), 251 Iowa 115, 99 N.W.2d 287; Baltimore Ohio RR. Co. v. Whitacre (1915), 124 Md. 411, 92 A. 1060; Leave, v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (1940), 306 Mass. 391, 28 N.E.2d 483; Krohmer v. Dahl (1965), 145 Mont. 491, 402 P.2d 979; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. King (Okla. 1954), 278 P.2d 845; Brodie v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. (1964), 415 Pa. 296, 203 A.2d 657; Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande Western R. Co. (1950), 117 Utah 57, 213 P.2d 325.
31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 186, page 907. 117 Utah 57, 213 P.2d 325, 329. "of such incidents as exhibiting the impaired member [the stump of an amputated arm], a dramatic demonstration of the difficulty of respondent in obtaining a wallet from his pocket * * *."
, 240 S.W.2d 709; Steuernagel v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 238 S.W.2d 426. (5) The award below, as reduced by the remittitur to $40,000, is in no wise excessive, particularly when due consideration is given to the diminished and continued diminishing value of the dollar in terms of purchasing power. Hayes v. Wabash R. Co., 360 Mo. 1223, 233 S.W.2d 12; Tatum v. Gulf, Mobile Ohio R. Co., 359 Mo. 709, 223 S.W.2d 418; Joice v. M.K. T.R. Co., 354 Mo. 439, 189 S.W.2d 568, 161 A.L.R. 383; Mooney v. Terminal R. Assn., 353 Mo. 1080, 186 S.W.2d 450; Hampton v. Wabash R. Co., 356 Mo. 999, 204 S.W.2d 708; Affolder v. New York, C. St. L.R. Co., 79 F. Supp. 365, 174 F.2d 486, 339 U.S. 96, 94 L.Ed. 439, 70 S.Ct. 509; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Ferguson, 182 F.2d 949; Fritz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 185 F.2d 31; Armentrout v. Virginia Ry. Co., 166 F.2d 400; Avance v. Thompson, 320 Ill. App. 406, 51 N.E.2d 334; Bartlebaugh v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 78 N.E.2d 410, 150 Ohio St. 387, 82 N.E.2d 853; Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande Western R. Co., 213 P.2d 325; McNulty v. Southern Pacific Co., 216 P.2d 534. (6) Plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence tending to support the award taken as true on appeal and viewed in the light most favorable to him, in the light most favorable to supporting the action of the trial court in declining to reduce the verdict to a sum less than $40,000. Steuernagel v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 238 S.W.2d 426; Hayes v. Wabash Railroad Co., 360 Mo. 1223, 233 S.W.2d 12, 17; Joice v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 354 Mo. 439, 189 S.W.2d 568; Nix v. Gulf, Mobile Ohio R. Co., 240 S.W.2d 709. (7) A trial court in supervising the amount of a verdict, exercises a discretionary power, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal except for manifest abuse thereof; and particularly is this true where the record, as here, affirmatively shows that the trial court gave consideration to the matter of alleged excessiveness of the verdict and required such remittitur as in his discretion he deemed proper.
Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 354 Mo. 1232, 193 S.W.2d 909. (17) The award below as reduced by the remittitur to $35,000 is in no wise excessive, particularly when due consideration is given to the diminished and continually diminishing value of the dollar in terms of purchasing power. Tatum v. Gulf, Mobile Ohio R. Co., 223 S.W.2d 418; Joice v. M.K. T.R. Co., 354 Mo. 439, 189 S.W.2d 568, 161 A.L.R. 383; Mooney v. Terminal R. Assn., 353 Mo. 1080, 186 S.W.2d 450; Hampton v. Wabash R. Co., 356 Mo. 999, 204 S.W.2d 708; Affolder v. New York, C. St. L.R. Co., 79 F. Supp. 365, 174 F.2d 486, 339 U.S. 96, 94 L.Ed. 439, 70 S.Ct. 509; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Ferguson, 182 F.2d 949; Armentrout v. Virginia Ry. Co., 166 F.2d 400; Avance v. Thompson, 320 Ill. App. 406, 51 N.E.2d 334; Bartlebaugh v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 78 N.E.2d 410, 150 Ohio St. 387, 82 N.E.2d 853; Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande Western R. Co., 213 P.2d 325; McNulty v. Southern Pac. Co., 216 P.2d 534. [479] ELLISON, J.
The irregularity of the ladder, the weather, the light and the fact that the car was stationary, were all matters to be taken into consideration in determining whether a violation of the statute contributed to the fall. In our recent decision of Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande Western R. Co., 117 Utah 57, 213 P.2d 325, which involves the F.E.L.A., we stated that if there exists any evidence from which negligence might be fairly inferred, the question is one for the determination of the jury even though the jury's verdict involved some speculation and conjecture in regard to some of the links of the chain of reasoning by which the conclusion was resolved. We stated that the rule should be applied equally to employees as well as employers. Therefore the instructions properly state that if the jury concludes that the plaintiff's negligence, if any, rather than the irregularity in the 5th rung of the ladder, was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, then the defendant must prevail.
New York — Rosen v. Symphony Co., 84 N.Y.S.2d 755; Idaho — Garrett v. Taylor, 210 P.2d 368; Kansas — Hood v. Am. Refrig. Transit Co., 106 Kan. 76, 186 P. 977; Nebraska — Dailey v. Sovereign Camp. W.W., 184 N.W. 920; Vermont — Halloran v. New England Teleph. Teleg. Co.; Maine — Valley v. Scott, 138 A. 311; Iowa — Noyes v. Des Moines Club, 170 N.W. 461; West Virginia — Looney v. N. W.R. Co., 102 W. Va. 40, 48 A.L.R. 806; Oklahoma — Oklahoma Transit Co. v. Martin, 91 P.2d 76; Georgia — Western Atlantic R.R. Co. v. Burnett, 54 S.E.2d 367; Philadelphia N.R.R. Co. v. McKibbin, 170 C.C.A. 452, 259 F. 476; Utah — Bennett v. Denver Rio Grande Western R. Co., 213 P.2d 331; South Carolina — Jennings v. McCowan, 555 S.E.2d 525; Penn. — Hamel v. R.C. McCarty Trucking Co., 81 Erie 44; Texas — Younger Bros. v. Marino, 193 S.W.2d 109; Minn. C.C.A. — Giles v. Chicago v. Great Western Ry., 72 F. Supp. 493. Courts again and again have reiterated the above pronouncements and more especially during the period of the very marked low purchasing power of the dollar and the very high cost of living and wages.