Guthrie v. Barda
| Decision Date | 24 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. C--524,C--524 |
| Citation | 188 Colo. 124,533 P.2d 487 |
| Parties | Clois H. GUTHRIE, D.O., Petitioner, v. Philip BARDA and Sylvia Barda, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Hoffman, McDermott & Hoffman, Gerald P. McDermott, Denver, for petitioner.
Feldman & Homyak, Michael R. Homyak, Denver, for respondents.
Philip and Sylvia Barda brought a medical malpractice action alleging, Inter alia, that Guthrie negligently failed to advise Philip Barda, his patient, of the consequences of certain surgery. The complaint contained a request for trial by jury on all issues.
Guthrie filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). His motions were based on an arbitration agreement signed by Philip Barda, which stated:
'In the event of any controversy between the PATIENT or a dependent . . . and the ATTENDING PHYSICIAN (including its agents and employees), involving in a claim in tort or contractual, the same shall be submitted to binding arbitration.'
The trial court, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b), conducted a hearing on the motions. There, the plaintiffs introduced several witnesses in an attempt to show that Philip Barda was unable to read and understand English, that in signing the form containing the arbitration provision he was unaware of its contents, that he did not give a valid consent to the arbitration provision, and that the arbitration clause was therefore invalid.
The court upheld the validity of the arbitration provision finding that Barda had sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand the arbitration agreement, and that he was assisted in his understanding by Sylvia Barda, his wife, who 'speaks the English language with clarity and facility.' Having determined that the arbitration agreement was valid, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
The Court of Appeals, Colo., 523 P.2d 155, reversed, holding that the assertion of the obligation to arbitrate is an affirmative defense; and that, therefore, when the judge considered matters outside of the pleadings in conjunction therewith, the defendant's motion to dismiss became a motion for summary judgment. Since the question of whether Barda gave a valid consent to the arbitration agreement involved a disputed question of fact, the Court of Appeals held that the matter should have been resolved by the jury at trial. We granted a writ of certiorari and for the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In Zahn v. District Court, 169 Colo. 405, 457 P.2d 387, we held that an arbitration clause requires 'submission of the disputed matters . . . to a board of arbitration as a condition precedent to plaintiffs' Right to proceed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Ad. and Pref.
...when findings of jurisdictional facts are required, these findings must be made by the court prior to trial." Guthrie v. Barda, 188 Colo. 124, 126-27, 533 P.2d 487, 488 (1975). "[A]ny court is competent to resolve a fact upon which its own jurisdiction depends." State ex rel. Danielson v. V......
-
Willis v. Tower Loan of Miss., LLC (In re Willis)
...to the agreement. See Union Planters Bank, Nat'l Ass'n , 912 So.2d at 120 ; Rotenberry , 864 So.2d at 270.37 See Guthrie v. Barda , 188 Colo. 124, 533 P.2d 487, 487 (1975) (compelling arbitration when the agreement stated only that claims "shall be submitted to binding arbitration").38 Havi......
-
State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickroy
...92, 253 P. 830 (1927). 9 Ordinarily any court is competent to resolve a fact upon which its own jurisdiction depends. Guthrie v. Barda, 188 Colo. 124, 533 P.2d 487 (1975). It would be consistent with the approach taken in concurrent jurisdiction cases to permit the court in which a matter p......
-
Ragab v. Howard
...merely requires arbitration, but does not spell out any other arbitration-related terms. Aplt. Br. at 30–31; see Guthrie v. Barda, 188 Colo. 124, 533 P.2d 487, 487 (1975) (upholding an arbitration provision that only stated that claims “shall be submitted to binding arbitration”). But such ......
-
1988 Update on Colorado Tort Reform Legislation-part I
...at 403(11). 139. Id. at 403(5). 140. Id. at 403(3). 141. Id. at 403(4). 142. Christensen v. Flaregas, 710 P.2d 6 (Colo.App. 1985). 143. 533 P.2d 487 (Colo.App, 1975). 144. Id. 145. Id. 146. CRS § 13-64-502. 147. CRS § 25-4-909(1). 148. Id. at 909(2)(a). 149. Id. at 909(2)(b). 150. CRS § 25-......