Smith v. JBJ Ltd., 82CA1410
| Decision Date | 11 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1410,82CA1410 |
| Citation | 694 P.2d 352 |
| Parties | Verne SMITH and Lois Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. JBJ LIMITED, a partnership, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Polidori, Rasmussen, Gerome & Jacobson, Dennis J. Jacobson, Gary L. Polidori, Lakewood, for plaintiffs-appellees and cross-appellants.
Hall & Evans, Duncan W. Cameron, Arthur R. Karstaedt, III, Denver, for defendant-appellant and cross-appellee.
Plaintiffs, Vern and Lois Smith (the Smiths), and defendants, JBJ, Ltd. (JBJ), both appeal from a jury verdict finding for the Smiths. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for amendment of judgment.
JBJ, a partnership, is the owner of the office building and adjacent parking lot which Vern Smith frequented for business purposes. On January 3, 1980, the parking lot was icy, and snow was present. He entered the building by walking along a sidewalk, but when he exited, he walked across the parking lot, slipped and fell on the ice, sustaining a serious fracture to his right ankle. The jury returned a special verdict for the Smiths for $16,000, assessing JBJ to be 51% negligent, and Vern Smith 49% negligent.
JBJ argues that it is entitled to a set-off for monies paid to the Smiths prior to trial. It alleges that its insurance carriers paid in excess of $11,000 for Vern Smith's loss of income under the liability provision of the policy.
After trial, JBJ asked to amend its answer to include a claim of set-off. The trial court deferred ruling on the motion until after the verdict, and then denied the motion. JBJ claims that by its attempt to amend its answer, it properly pled set-off under C.R.C.P. 13(a). However, we need not consider whether the issue was properly raised, because, even if it were, the record is devoid of proof of these payments, and therefore, the trial court would have been without a basis for granting the set-off even if it had ruled that the matter was properly pled.
The Smiths first argue that the trial court erred in allowing JBJ's attorney to use an improper hypothetical example in his closing argument. We agree that the hypothetical stated in this case did not contain facts which approximated the facts in evidence, nor did it even come near the same application of duty as required by the law to be applied to the facts in this case. We do not condone its use, but when we consider it in the totality of the closing argument, and the emphasis placed by counsel on his arguments, and consider that this illustration was effectively counteracted by rebuttal argument, the use of this improper hypothetical most likely had no significant impact on the outcome of the trial. See F. Busch, Law & Tactics in Jury Trials § 681 (1963).
The jury was properly instructed that the arguments of counsel were not to be considered as evidence. In returning its verdict for the Smiths, there is no indication that it was misled by the hypothetical, nor that it confused Vern Smith with the example of the "Avon lady" used in the hypothetical, nor is there any indication that the jury applied an inappropriate legal standard of duty. Hence, no prejudice has been shown, and therefore, there was no abuse of discretion which would justify reversal. See Swift v. Weston, 511 P.2d 915 (Colo.App.1973) ().
The Smiths also complain that no instruction on choice of ways should have been given. The record reveals, however, that there was a great deal of conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a known safe way available to Mr. Smith. An instruction on this subject was therefore appropriate. See Fox v. Martens, 132 Colo. 208, 286 P.2d 628 (1955).
The Smiths next argue that the trial court erred in denying their request for interest on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grove By and Through Grove v. Myers
...or court rule in question provides otherwise. See State v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 266, 272, 273-74 n. 27 (Alaska 1970); Smith v. JBJ Ltd., 694 P.2d 352, 354 (Colo.Ct.App.1984); Pray v. Narragansett Improvement Co., 434 A.2d 923, 930-31 (R.I.1981); In re Certification of Question from United Sta......
-
Blood v. Qwest Services Corp.
...(allegedly improper statements "a small part of a lengthy closing argument"); Seven-Eleven, 841 P.2d at 334; Smith v. JBJ Ltd., 694 P.2d 352, 353 (Colo.App.1984) (allegedly improper argument is "consider[ed] ... in the totality of the closing argument"). And, as indicated, Qwest's responsib......
-
Four Corners Helicopters, Inc. v. Turbomeca, S.A.
...if interest is claimed from the date the action accrued, the trial court must calculate interest from that date." Smith v. JBJ, Ltd., 694 P.2d 352, 354 (Colo.Ct.App.1984) (emphasis added). The statute is ministerial in nature, providing that "[w]hen such interest is so claimed, it is the du......
-
Francis ex rel. Goodridge v. Dahl, No. 03CA0785.
...be compounded annually from the date her complaint was filed. Mladjan v. Pub. Serv. Co., 797 P.2d 1299 (Colo.App.1990); Smith v. JBJ Ltd., 694 P.2d 352 (Colo.App.1984). Compound interest is defined as "interest paid on both the principal and the previously accumulated interest." Black's Law......
-
Collecting Pre- and Post-judgment Interest in Colorado: a Primer
...supra, note 19 (applying common law moratory interest). 53. See, Tripp, supra, note 31. 54. Id. at 127. 55. Id. 56. Smith v. J.B.J., Ltd., 694 P.2d 352 (Colo.App. 1984); Briggs v. Cornwell, 676 P.2d 1252 (Colo.App. 1983). 57. See, Clark v. Hicks, 252 P.2d 1067 (Colo. 1953). 58. E.g., Martin......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.5 ARGUING THE EVIDENCE AND THE REASONABLE INFERENCES
...facts that approximate the facts in the case with the same duty as required by the law to be applied to the facts. Smith v. JBJ, Ltd., 694 P.2d 352, 353 (Colo. App. 1984). ➢ Relying upon Nonhearsay for the Truth During Closing Is Improper. It is inappropriate to argue that out-of-court stat......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.5 • ARGUING THE EVIDENCE AND THE REASONABLE INFERENCES
...facts that approximate the facts in the case with the same duty as required by the law to be applied to the facts. Smith v. JBJ, Ltd., 694 P.2d 352, 353 (Colo. App. 1984). ➢ Relying upon Nonhearsay for the Truth During Closing Is Improper. It is inappropriate to argue that out-of-court stat......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.3 CURATIVE INSTRUCTIONS
...and considering the totality of the argument, the attorney's use of an improper hypothetical did not cause prejudice. Smith v. JBJ, Ltd., 694 P.2d 352 (Colo. App. 1984). ➢ Curative Instruction for Improper Evidence Argument. "An objectionable characterization of the evidence during closing ......