Polster v. Griff's of America, Inc.
Decision Date | 08 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. C--413,C--413 |
Citation | 520 P.2d 745,184 Colo. 418 |
Parties | Margurett POLSTER, Petitioner, v. GRIFF'S OF AMERICA, INC., a Missouri corporation, Respondent. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Walton, Tammen & Hudson, Norman E. Walton, Colorado Springs, for petitioner.
Sheldon, Bayer, McLean & Glasman, Richard H. Glasman, Denver, for respondent.
Petitioner recovered judgment against respondent in the district court of El Paso County for personal injuries suffered as a result of a slip-and-fall accident. The Court of Appeals reversed in Polster v. Griff's of America, Inc., Colo.App., 514 P.2d 80. Certiorari was granted to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. We reverse.
The facts of the accident are detailed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In brief summary the petitioner's evidence showed that she suffered injuries to her head and neck when she slipped and fell on a snow-covered concrete incline leading from respondent's place of business.
The basis for reversal of the trial court's decision concerned the evidentiary rule applicable in negligence cases barring 'subsequent curative acts.' A statement by respondent's employee, made immediately after petitioner's fall and relating to the condition of the premises where the fall took place, was admitted into evidence.
The frame of reference in which the testimony was presented was as follows:
Petitioner testified that immediately after her fall, another customer asked her if she was hurt, to which objection was made. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted this testimony as a part of the Res gestae. As petitioner resumed her testimony concerning the events of the fall, another objection was made to the responsiveness of her answer. This objection was properly overruled. She then testified that while she was still lying on the ground two of respondent's employees came to her assistance. One employee said to the other: 'Go to 7-Eleven and get some salt and put on this and get a broom and sweep it.' No objection was made to this testimony.
Respondent for the first time claimed prejudicial error in its motion for new trial, because of the admission of this testimony, as follows:
The motion for new trial was denied.
The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court, holding that the admission of such statements violated the curative acts rule of evidence. On rehearing, however, it modified its opinion and held that the evidence was admissible as a part of the Res gestae; and that, while it was not admissible as an admission of negligence on the part of the respondent, it was competent and relevant for the limited purpose of showing the condition of the premises at the time of the accident. The Court was of the further opinion that since the evidence was admissible only for this limited purpose, it was reversible error for the trial court not to give a cautionary instruction to the jury, advising it of the limited purpose of the evidence. As noted before, no objection was made at trial to this testimony. No cautionary instruction was requested at the time the testimony was given, nor was one requested of or tendered to the trial court at the time of the jury charge. The failure to give a cautionary instruction was not urged as error in respondent's motion for new trial.
Further, respondent did not raise the issue in its brief or argument on appeal. It is clear that the Court of Appeals sua sponte raised the issue on rehearing and determined that the failure to give the cautionary instruction limiting the jury's consideration of the evidence was plain error. C.A.R. 1(d). We disagree.
While we agree with the holding of the Court of Appeals that the general rule renders evidence as to curative acts after an accident inadmissible to establish negligence (Barnes v. Safeway Stores, 30 Colo.App. 281, 493 P.2d 687; Diamond Rubber Co. v. Harryman, 41 Colo. 415, 92 P. 922), as that Court noted, there are several exceptions to the rule. See Annot.64 A.L.R.2d 1296. The Court properly ruled that the exception applicable to the facts in this case was that which permits such evidence to establish the condition of the premises at the time of the accident. It does not follow, however, that the admission of such evidence generally without objection, which is competent and relevant for a limited purpose only, will require reversal because the trial court did not on its own initiative note the limitation on the reception of the evidence and specifically instruct the jury of its limited purpose.
It is a fundamental rule of trial practice, long established in Colorado, that when evidence is admissible for one purpose and not another, the burden is upon counsel opposing the admission of the evidence to object and request limitations on its admission. Young v. Bank, 148 Colo. 104, 365 P.2d 701; Davis v. Bonebrake, 135 Colo. 506, 313 P.2d 982; McAllister v. McAllister, 72 Colo. 28, 209 P. 788; Grimes v. Greenblatt, 47 Colo. 495, 107 P. 1111; San Miguel C.G.M. Co. v. Bonner, 33 Colo. 207, 79 P. 1025; Town of Meeker v. Fairfield, 25 Colo.App. 187, 136 P. 471. In Davis v. Bonebrake, Supra, we noted the rule with approval, as set forth in Eizerman v. Behn, 9 Ill.App.2d 263, 132 N.E.2d 788:
See also Daggett v. Atchison T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 48 Cal.2d 655, 313 P.2d 557, 64 A.L.R.2d 1283; State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 41 N.W.2d 313, 15 A.L.R.2d 1137; Yuin v. Hilton, 165 Ohio St. 164, 59 Ohio Op. 219, 134 N.E.2d 719, 57 A.L.R.2d 681; C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 59; J. Wigmore, Evidence § 13 (3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leliefeld v. Johnson
...an area, Otts v. Brough, 90 Idaho 124, 409 P.2d 95 (1965); to show conditions at the time of the accident, Polster v. Griff's of America, Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745 (1974); to show a specific duty attributable to one of the parties, Baldwin Contracting Co. v. Winston Steel Works, Inc......
-
Wilson v. Ihc Hosps., Inc.
...an objectionable question had been withdrawn.FN2 See State v. King, 2006 UT 3, ¶ 14, 131 P.3d 202 (citing Polster v. Griff's of Am., Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745, 747 (1974), for the general rule that “the trial court has no duty to question each piece of evidence offered.... It should......
-
State v. Hummel
...when the State stretched evidence" (emphasis added)).33 See State v. King, 2006 UT 3, ¶ 14, 131 P.3d 202 ; Polster v. Griff's of Am., Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745, 747 (1974) (citing the general rule that "the trial court has no duty to question each piece of evidence offered.... It sh......
-
State v. Larrabee
...defendant's chance of acquittal”). 15.See also State v. King, 2006 UT 3, ¶ 14, 131 P.3d 202 (citing Polster v. Griff's of Am., Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745, 747 (1974), for the general rule that “the trial court has no duty to question each piece of evidence offered.... It should not a......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...error could be characterized as "fundamental" or where it is the cause of a "miscarriage of justice". Polster v. Griff's of Am., Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745 (1974). Such as error in amount of verdict. An error in the amount of a verdict not properly before the supreme court, as for ex......
-
Rule 1 SCOPE OF RULES.
...error could be characterized as "fundamental" or where it is the cause of a "miscarriage of justice". Polster v. Griff's of Am., Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745 (1974). Such as error in amount of verdict. An error in the amount of a verdict not properly before the supreme court, as for ex......
-
The Colorado Product Liability Act of 1977
...29. See, Barnes v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 30 Colo. App. 281, 493 P.2d 687 (1971), cert. denied and Polster v. Griff's of America, 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745 (1974). 30. See, Good v. A.B. Chance Co., ___ Colo. App ___, 565 P.2d 217 (1977), citing Ault v. International Harvester Co., 177 Cal.......
-
The Civil Litigator
...222, 510 P.2d 1376 (1973); Polster v. Griff's of America, Inc., 32 Colo.App. 264, 514 P.2d 80 (1973), reversed on other grounds, 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745 (1974); Hildyard v. Western Fasteners, Inc., 33 Colo.App. 396, 522 P.2d 596 (1974). 36. Raytheon Production Corp. v. Commissioner, 144......