## Facts

- Erwin M. Prince drove a cattle truck that crashed, and steers escaped from the truck.
- Grant Davidson was later attacked and injured by one of the escaped steers.
- Davidson sued Prince (and the trucking company associated with the truck) for negligence.
- A key dispute at trial was whether Davidson acted unreasonably by getting too close to the steer, which defendants argued made Davidson contributorily negligent.
- Before trial, Davidson sent Prince a letter describing the incident, stating Davidson intended to hold Prince responsible, and estimating that Davidson was about ten feet from the steer when it attacked.
- Defendants offered the letter (or testimony about its contents) to support their claim that Davidson “cornered” the steer and was contributorily negligent.
- Davidson moved to exclude the letter under Utah Rule of Evidence 408, arguing it was part of settlement discussions.
- The trial court admitted the letter evidence, excluded Davidson’s proposed expert opinion that Davidson “was not negligent,” and gave a jury instruction addressing the income-tax consequences of a personal-injury award.
- The jury found defendants 60% at fault and Davidson 40% at fault and awarded damages to Davidson consistent with that allocation.
- The trial court denied Davidson’s motion for a new trial, and Davidson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the income-tax consequences of a personal-injury damages award, and whether the error required a new trial.
2. Whether the trial court properly excluded expert testimony offering the legal conclusion that Davidson was or was not negligent under Utah Rule of Evidence 704.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Davidson’s pre-suit letter (including the “ten feet” estimate) over a Utah Rule of Evidence 408 objection that it was made during compromise discussions.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals held the tax-consequences instruction was improper in a personal-injury case and constituted reversible error.
- The court held the trial court properly excluded expert opinion testimony that directly stated a legal conclusion on negligence.
- The court held the trial court properly admitted evidence of Davidson’s pre-suit letter because it was not shown to be part of compromise negotiations covered by Rule 408.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the improper tax instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts should not instruct juries on the income-tax consequences of personal-injury awards; introducing tax effects injects a collateral matter and risks juror confusion and speculation.
- Utah Rule of Evidence 704 allows opinion testimony that touches an ultimate issue, but it does not permit an expert to give a legal conclusion such as that a party “was negligent” or “was not negligent”; that determination is for the factfinder.
- Utah Rule of Evidence 408 excludes statements made in compromise negotiations when offered to prove liability or amount, but it does not bar every pre-suit communication; a letter that primarily states facts and asserts a claim, without showing bargaining or compromise efforts, is not necessarily protected.

## Conclusion

Davidson v. Prince required a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed on the tax consequences of a personal-injury award, while the court otherwise approved the trial court’s evidentiary rulings excluding expert legal-conclusion testimony on negligence and admitting Davidson’s pre-suit letter since it was not established as part of compromise negotiations under Rule 408.


Davidson v. Prince, 813 P.2d 1225 (1991)