 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thurston v. Workers Compensation Fund of12/26/2003
no evidence demonstrating that the damages complained of flow naturally from any contract breach attributable to Defendants or were reasonably foreseeable to Defendants.
Plaintiffs' claim is essentially that but for Defendants' acts, Thurston would not have died. Categorizing some of those acts as contract breaches does not eliminate the need to establish a causal connection. Defendants' acts, whether breaches of contract or torts, must be causally linked to Plaintiffs' damages. As Corbin explains,
damages are not recoverable for injury that is too remote from the conduct of the defendant constituting his breach of duty. . . . amages are not recoverable for losses suffered . . . unless the requirements of the law as to 'proximate' causation are satisfied. The form of this rule is the same whether it is being applied in the field of contracts or in the field of torts.
Id. Again, when causation "'is left to conjecture, the plaintiff must fail as a matter of law.'" Mahmood v. Ross, 1999 UT 104, , 990 P.2d 933 (citations omitted).
II. Discovery Dispute
Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiffs' motion for in camera review. The discovery dispute began when CNS objected to two of Plaintiffs' interrogatories and asserted the peer review privilege and WCF objected to one of Plaintiffs' interrogatories as being ambiguous and asserted several privileges. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' objections was to seek an in camera review, which the trial court denied.
The trial court found the interrogatories to be vague and suggested Plaintiffs clarify the information sought. The court stated that if clarification did not satisfy Defendants, Plaintiffs were "to make a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute" by complying with Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37, and if that attempt failed, Plaintiffs could then file a motion to compel. Instead of following the road map so precisely laid out by the trial court, Plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal, which was denied. Given the broad latitude the trial court is given in handling discovery matters, see R&R;Energies v. Mother Earth Indus., 936 P.2d 1068, 1079 (Utah 1997), and the reasonable means by which the court attempted to resolve the discovery dispute, we see no abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
The trial court properly granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment because Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence on which a jury could properly conclude that the negligence of Defendants was the proximate cause of Thurston's death. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling the discovery dispute, and on the contrary, properly advised the Plaintiffs of reasonable steps to take in order to resolve the dispute.
Affirmed.
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
WE CONCUR:
Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|