## Facts

- Dale Jensen died after receiving treatment in a hospital emergency room.
- His survivors sued Intermountain Health Care, Inc. (hospital) and alleged negligent emergency-room treatment contributed to death; the emergency-room physician’s negligence was also at issue.
- Before trial, plaintiffs settled with the emergency-room physician and proceeded to trial against the hospital.
- The jury returned a special verdict allocating fault: 46% to the decedent, 36% to the hospital, and 18% to the physician.

## Issues

1. Under Utah’s Comparative Negligence Act in a multi-defendant case, must a plaintiff’s negligence be compared against each defendant’s negligence separately, or against the combined negligence of all defendants to determine whether recovery is barred?
2. If combined comparison applies, whether the trial court erred by setting aside the jury’s verdict and entering judgment of no cause of action.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded for entry of judgment on the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff against the hospital.
- The Court held the Comparative Negligence Act requires comparing the plaintiff’s (or decedent’s) negligence to the combined negligence of all defendants (the “unit” rule), not to each defendant individually (the “Wisconsin” rule).
- Because the decedent’s fault (46%) was less than the combined defendants’ fault (54%), recovery was not barred.

## Legal Principles

- In multi-defendant actions under Utah’s Comparative Negligence Act, the plaintiff’s negligence is measured against the aggregate negligence of all defendants when deciding whether the plaintiff may recover.
- Comparative negligence statutes must be construed as an integrated scheme; provisions on special verdicts, joint and several liability, and allocation among multiple tortfeasors inform the operative comparison rule.
- A construction that would allow recovery to be barred even when defendants collectively bear more fault than the plaintiff is inconsistent with the Act’s purpose to mitigate the contributory-negligence bar and apportion liability among tortfeasors.

## Conclusion

The court required a single comparison between the plaintiff’s fault and the combined fault of all defendants, reinstating the jury’s allocation and directing entry of judgment on the verdict because the decedent’s negligence was less than defendants’ total negligence.


Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 679 P.2d 903 (Utah 1984)