Bodah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 83CA1473
| Decision Date | 05 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 83CA1473,83CA1473 |
| Citation | 724 P.2d 102 |
| Parties | Michael BODAH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of Stephen H. Cook, Stephen H. Cook, Stephanie M. Selden, Boulder, for plaintiff-appellee.
Law Offices of John E. Walberg, Wendelyn K. Walberg, Kurt E. Walberg, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
In this action for personal injuries, defendant, Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. (Ward), appeals the judgment in favor of plaintiff, Michael Bodah, for damages arising when plaintiff fell from a ladder while repairing an electrical sign in one of defendant's stores. We affirm.
Defendant contends the following on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's award of punitive damages, or in the alternative, any punitive damage award should be reduced by the amount of negligence attributed to plaintiff; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the principle of negligence per se; and (3) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the presumption of regularity of acts by public officials.
Plaintiff was employed by a business that builds, installs, and services neon signs for other businesses. On January 8, 1980, plaintiff proceeded to the defendant's store in Boulder to repair its neon sign. Similar repairs had been done on the sign, on three previous occasions.
During these previous occasions, it was necessary to disengage the electrical current to the neon sign while making the repairs. However, the same switches which controlled the flow of electricity to the sign also controlled the flow of electricity to the cash registers in the store. As a result, there were instances when Wards' personnel reengaged the electrical current while the repairs were still taking place. The management was informed of this and stated that the situation would be corrected.
When plaintiff arrived at Ward, he was unaware of the previous incidents. After disengaging the electrical current to the neon sign, he climbed the ladder to repair the sign. As he was repairing it, the electricity came back on. The shock threw him off of the ladder, and he fractured both his wrists in the fall. A judgment of $70,000 for both actual and punitive damages was rendered in his favor. This appeal ensued.
Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's award of punitive damages, or in the alternative, any punitive damages should be reduced by the amount of negligence attributed to plaintiff. We disagree.
Section 13-21-102, C.R.S., provides that a jury may award exemplary damages when "the injury complained of is attended by circumstances of fraud, malice or insult, or a wanton and reckless disregard of the injured party's rights and feelings."
The requirements for the award of exemplary damages are met if the defendant, while conscious of his conduct and cognizant of existing conditions, knew, or should have known, that injury would probably result from his acts. Frick v. Abell, 198 Colo. 508, 602 P.2d 852 (1979). The standard to be applied in reviewing the efficacy of such award is whether there was sufficient evidence, when viewed in its totality and in the light most supportive of the verdict, to support the jury's finding on the issue. See People v. Bueno, 188 Colo. 396, 534 P.2d 1196 (1975).
Ward claims that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of the facts necessary to justify the award of exemplary damages. Here, the record indicates that on at least three occasions prior to the plaintiff's injury, defendant was notified that a dangerous situation involving a significant threat of injury was created by the reengagement of the defendant's electrical system while a person was repairing the store's neon sign.
Further, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant had expressly learned on each occasion that this risk of injury was due to the conditions at the store, specifically, that the same switches which controlled the flow of electricity to the sign also controlled the flow of electricity to the cash registers. Further, there was no evidence that defendant had taken measures to alleviate the danger. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably have concluded that beyond a reasonable doubt Ward acted with wanton and reckless disregard. See § 13-21-102, C.R.S.
Defendant's argument that the trial court erred when it failed to reduce the punitive damage award by the amount of negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lira v. Davis
...in accordance with the fault apportioned him by the jury. As to exemplary damages, our court of appeals in Bodah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 724 P.2d 102, 104 (Colo.App.1986), and Jacobs v. Commonwealth Highland Theatres, Inc., 738 P.2d 6, 13 (Colo.App.1986) (relying on Bodah ), held th......
-
Jacobs v. Commonwealth Highland Theatres, Inc.
...damages in that it tended to show defendant's continued failure to correct a dangerous condition known to it. See Bodah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 724 P.2d 102 (Colo.App.1986); cf. Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo.1984). Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not abu......
-
Davis v. Lira
...damages awarded to plaintiff prior to adjustment affecting reductions for the negligence of plaintiff. See Bodah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 724 P.2d 102 (Colo.App.1986). Here, one verdict form was directed to determining the actual compensatory damages of plaintiff and the percentage neglige......
-
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Andrews, s. 83CA0985
...and in the light most favorable to the jury's verdicts, see Frick v. Abell, 198 Colo. 508, 602 P.2d 852 (1979); Bodah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 724 P.2d 102 (Colo.App.1986), justified submission of the question of exemplary damages to the jury and supports an award of such damages in each i......
-
Short Sale Assistance in Colorado and Under Mars
...36. Western Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc., 134 P.3d 570, 577 (Colo.App. 2006). 37. Bodah v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc., 724 P.2d 102, 103 (Colo.App. 1986). See also CRS § 13-21-102. 38. 16 C.F.R. pt. 322.9(a). 39. 16 C.F.R. pt. 322.9(b). 40. MARS Final Rule, supra note 24 at 75......