In Kilpatrick v. Wiley, 2001 UT 107, 37 P.3d 1130, the parties disagreed with the trial court's interpretation of the comparative fault statute and the jury instructions given explaining the statute. On appeal, the Court declined to reach the issue of whether the trial court had erroneously interpreted the comparative fault statute because the statute had been clarified by an amendment after trial, and we concluded that the amended version of the statute would be applicable on remand.