Cookman v. Caldwell
| Decision Date | 04 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 8802. |
| Citation | 170 P. 952,64 Colo. 206 |
| Parties | COOKMAN v. CALDWELL. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Lincoln County; J. W. Sheafor, Judge.
Action by Martha E. Caldwell against W. L. Cookman. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Hayt Dawson & Wright, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Louis Vogt, of Burlington, and C. B. Horn, of Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.
This is an action wherein the plaintiff below brought suit against the defendant below for damages sustained by reason of an alleged assault and battery.
The only question necessary to be considered upon this review is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to warrant an instruction wherein the jury are told that in determining the amount of damages which the plaintiff shall recover, they should consider 'the probable effects' of the physical injuries sustained upon plaintiff's 'future health and strength.'
No testimony was submitted on behalf of plaintiff except that of herself. She testified, so far as concerns the question under consideration, to the following effect: That the assault and battery was committed on March 5, 1915, about one month prior to the time of trial; that while plaintiff was sitting in a rocking chair the defendant grabbed her by the arm and jerked her out of the chair; that he then threw her against a door casing; that her shoulder struck the door casing; that the defendant then shoved her in the back with his hands; and that the striking of her back sprained it, and her head hurt after that. The plaintiff testified further, as follows:
Enough of the evidence has been herein set forth to show plaintiff's strongest, and substantially all, testimony on the matter in question. We are of the opinion that this evidence was insufficient to warrant the instruction given.
An examination of many cases where the evidence was held to be sufficient to authorize an instruction permitting a recovery for future pain and suffering discloses that in most of such cases the injuries received were of such nature that the injured person must of necessity undergo pain and suffering in the future. It may be said in the case at bar, as is stated in Shawnee-Tecumseh Traction Co. v. Griggs (Okl.) 151 P. 230:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stahl v. Cooper
... ... It is only when ... there is substantial evidence that future expenditures will ... be required that such an instruction is proper. Cookman ... v. Caldwell, 64 Colo. 206, 170 P. 952; Seeing Denver ... Co. v. Morgan, 66 Colo. 565, 185 P. 339. It was ... prejudicial in leading the ... ...
-
Olivero v. Trek Bicycle Corp., Civil Action No. 16–cv–0761–WJM–MJW
...damages for permanent injury and future pain solely on the plaintiff's own testimony. The first of these cases is Cookman v. Caldwell , 64 Colo. 206, 170 P. 952 (1918), where the plaintiff complained of a battery that injured her shoulder and back, leading to a persisting problem of arm swe......
-
Boryla v. Pash
...consequences are only recoverable when there is a "reasonable certainty" that a future injury will arise. Cookman v. Caldwell, 64 Colo. 206, 208, 170 P. 952, 953 (1918); see Barter Machinery & Supply Co. v. Muchow, 169 Colo. 100, 453 P.2d 804 (1969) (plaintiff must prove future harm is more......
-
Duffy v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...Wheeler v. City of Boone, 108 Iowa 235, 78 N.W. 909, 44 L.R.A. 821; Sherman v. Frank, 63 Cal.App.2d 278, 146 P.2d 704; Cookman v. Caldwell, 64 Colo. 206, 170 P. 952; 25 C.J.S., Damages, p. 885, Sec. 185. Whether the amount of proof may perhaps be of a lesser degree under the Picino case, su......