Ark Val. Alfalfa Mills, Inc. v. Day, 17039
| Citation | 263 P.2d 815,128 Colo. 436 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 17039,17039 |
| Parties | ARK VALLEY ALFALFA MILLS, Inc. v. DAY et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
January & Yegge, Richard D. Hall, Denver, Allen & Strain, La Junta, for plaintiff in error.
Thulemeyer & Stewart, La Junta, for defendants in error.
We will refer to plaintiff in error as defendant, and to the defendants in error as plaintiffs, the positions held by said parties to this litigation in the trial court.
In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged that on September 4, 1951 the agent and servant of defendant 'negligently, carelessly and with a wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and feelings, drove a tractor and the equipment said tractor was pulling against and into a motor vehicle then being driven by Plaintiff, James E. Day.' Inez Day, wife of James, and their daughter, Eileen, were passengers in said motor vehicle. Plaintiffs further alleged, and on the trial proved, an expenditure of $17 for medical expenses incurred as a result of the personal injuries they claimed to have sustained as a result of this accident. James E. Day demanded $2,500 actual and $1,000 exemplary damages; Inez Day asked for $2,000 actual and $1,000 exemplary damages, and Eileen, the daughter, sought $1,000 actual and $500 exemplary damages, all on account of personal injuries.
Issue having been joined, trial was had which resulted in verdicts awarding James E. Day $1,517 actual and $1,000 exemplary damages; Inez Day $1,200 actual and $1,000 exemplary damages; and Eileen Day $600 actual and $500 exemplary damages. Motion for new trial having been overruled judgment was entered on the verdicts, from which defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
The accident occurred at night. Defendant's tractor (a small farm type tractor) was going east on public Highway No. 10, a roadway some 23 feet wide, including about a foot of shoulder, the balance being an oiled surface. A three-foot borrow pit was on each side of the road. Following the accident no skid marks from either conveyance were found. There is no dispute in the record that the tractor was moving slowly, less than five miles per hour.
The plaintiffs at the time of the accident were returning to their home from the Arkansas Valley Fair, traveling along Highway No. 71 which intersects Highway No. 10. When James E. Day reached Highway No. 10 he said he turned his car to the right and observed defendant's tractor some distance down the road. Another witness said the Day car traveled about one-tenth of a mile along Highway No. 10 before the impact. Day said he dimmed his lights because the lights on the tractor were 'bright'. He testified that the tractor lights were not dimmed prior to the accident. Day testified, as did his wife, that he was driving 35 miles per hour immediately before his car struck the rear life wheel of the farm tractor, knocking this wheel off; that as a result of the collision he received bruises on his left knee, chest, a bump on his head, and became nervous. He said he was partially disabled for three weeks, and that he hired a man to work on the farm for three months. Mrs. Day suffered a cut on her head, had black and blue knees, and claimed that she was upset and suffered nervous headaches. Eileen also had a cut on her head and claimed nervousness as a result of the collision. Another child in the Day automobile was not injured.
Day claimed that defendant was negligent in that the overall width of the tractor and the equipment it was pulling caused a portion thereof to extend into his half of Highway No. 10. It is undisputed in the record that this equipment was as far to the righthand side of the road as it could be, and that the trailer which was also attached to the hay chopper did protrude over into the north half of Highway No. 10. The tractor was some six feet in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
..."The purpose for punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer and thus deter similar conduct in the future. Ark Valley Alfalfa Mills, [Inc. v. Day, 128 Colo. 436, 263 P.2d 815 (1953) ]. However, exemplary damages must bear some relation to the actual damages. Id. Although no precise formula ......
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
...S.W.2d 629 (1956); Schroeder v. Auto Driveway Co., 11 Cal.3d 908, 114 Cal.Rptr. 622, 523 P.2d 662 (1974); Ark Valley Alfalfa Mills, Inc. v. Day, 128 Colo. 436, 263 P.2d 815 (1953); Riegel v. Aastad, 272 A.2d 715 (Del.1970); Jones v. Spindel, 128 Ga.App. 88, 196 S.E.2d 22 (1973); Lou Leventh......
-
Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road Company
...1. California: Murdrick v. Market Street Ry., 1938, 11 Cal.2d 724, 81 P.2d 950, 118 A.L.R. 533. Colorado: Ark Valley Alfalfa Mills, Inc. v. Day, 1953, 128 Colo. 436, 263 P. 2d 815; Kohut v. Boguslavsky, 1925, 78 Colo. 95, 239 P. 876. Connecticut: Gorczyca v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R......
-
Sunward Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...Mince v. Butters, 200 Colo. 501, 616 P.2d 127 (1980); Beebe v. Pierce, 185 Colo. 34, 521 P.2d 1263 (1974); Ark Valley Alfalfa Mills, Inc. v. Day, 128 Colo. 436, 263 P.2d 815 (1953); Wegner v. Rodeo Cowboys, supra. To recover exemplary damages, plaintiff must first show actual damages, Wagne......
-
The Colorado Product Liability Act of 1977
...118 Colo. 161, 193 P.2d 273 (1948); Starkey v. Dameron, 92 Colo.420,21 P.2d 1112,22P.2d640 (1933); and Ark Valley Alfalfa Mills v. Day, 128 Colo. 436,263 P.2d 815 (1953). However, in the last several years both the Colorado Court of Appeals and the federal courts have seemingly abandoned th......
-
Recovering Actual Damages Under Colorado's Construction Defect Action Reform Act-part Ii
...("the court, in addition to the actual damages, may award exemplary damages" (emphasis added)). 70. See Ark Valley Alfalfa Mills v. Day, 263 P.2d 815 (Colo. 1953). 71. Lowering insurance premiums and making insurance more available were the primary justifications for amending CDARA in 2003.......