Skeens v. Kroh
| Decision Date | 28 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--400,70--400 |
| Citation | 30 Colo.App. 88,489 P.2d 347 |
| Parties | Paul SKEENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. F. KROH, Defendant-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Ashen & Fogel, George T. Ashen, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Wood, Ris & Hames, Eugene S. Hames, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
This case involves a claim for damages allegedly resulting from an automobile accident. Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the court dismissed the action on defendant's motion because the plaintiff was unable to identify the defendant.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendant negligently and carelessly operated his automobile causing it to strike the plaintiff's automobile, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. The defendant admitted in his pleadings that his automobile was involved in an accident with plaintiff's automobile. The theory of defendant's defense, as expressed in his pleadings and opening statement, was that even though there was an accident, it was so minor that it could not possibly have caused any injuries to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's evidence established that plaintiff was seated in his automobile which was properly parked at the curb of a city street when the defendant's automobile turned into a driveway in front of plaintiff's automobile. The right rear door of defendant's car scraped along the left front bumper of plaintiff's car, jolting the plaintiff. Plaintiff's medical testimony was to the effect that a pre-existing neck injury was aggravated by this accident. Approximately two years had elapsed between the time of the accident and the trial. In plaintiff's testimony he could not identify the defendant, who was seated in the court room at the time, as the man who was driving the defendant's car.
The trial court concluded that plaintiff's inability to positively identify the gentleman seated at the defense counsel's table as the named defendant was fatal to plaintiff's case and cause for dismissal. We do not agree.
The defendant's answer admitted that his automobile was involved in an accident with plaintiff's automobile and in his opening statement, defendant's attorney stated that defendant was driving his automobile at the time of the accident. Specific admissions in pleadings preclude the pleader from later taking a position inconsistent with the existence of the facts admitted. Harvey v. Denver & R.G.R. Co., 56 Colo. 570, 139 P. 1098; Smith v. Nelson, 149 Colo....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Wells and Associates v. Cardinal Properties, Inc.
...Cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1111, 25 L.Ed.2d 399 (1970); Dodge v. Chambers, 43 Colo. 366, 96 P. 178 (1908); Skeens v. Kroh, 30 Colo.App. 88, 489 P.2d 347 (1971). Viewing the complaint in this case in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, See Spomer v. City of Grand Junction, 1......
-
Larson v. A.T.S.I.
...Hiram Grand Lodge, 86 Colo. 330, 282 P. 193 (1929); Nelson v. Lake Canal Co., 644 P.2d 55 (Colo.App.1981); and Skeens v. Kroh, 30 Colo.App. 88, 489 P.2d 347 (1971). In light of defendants' admission of the existence of a physical injury, the jury's verdict for defendants cannot be supported......
-
Gordon v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...admissions from its answer and its opening statement, See La Rocco v. Fernandez, 130 Colo. 523, 277 P.2d 232 (1954); Skeens v. Kroh, 30 Colo.App. 88, 489 P.2d 347 (1971), was the testimony of the plaintiff summarized above. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the trial court ruled that s......
-
Marriage of Lamm, In re, 82CA1395
...of the amounts due. Accordingly, he has waived this argument. Nelson v. Lake Canal Co., 644 P.2d 55 (Colo.App.1981); Skeens v. Kroh, 30 Colo.App. 88, 489 P.2d 347 (1971). Since this contention was withdrawn as an issue before the trial court, it cannot properly be raised in this appeal. All......
-
Chapter 9 - § 9.4 EFFECT OF OPENING STATEMENT
...are binding on a party and can form the basis for directed verdict. LaRocco v. Fernandez, 277 P.2d 232, 235 (Colo. 1954); Skeens v. Kroh, 489 P.2d 347, 348 (Colo. App. 1971). To be considered a judicial admission, the statement made must be deliberate, clear, and unambiguous. When made in a......
-
Chapter 9 - § 9.4 • EFFECT OF OPENING STATEMENT
...are binding on a party and can form the basis for directed verdict. LaRocco v. Fernandez, 277 P.2d 232, 235 (Colo. 1954); Skeens v. Kroh, 489 P.2d 347, 348 (Colo. App. 1971). ➢ Admissions; Opening Statements. Admissions of counsel in opening statements must be unequivocal to have binding ef......