Stillings v. Davis
| Decision Date | 11 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20938,20938 |
| Citation | 158 Colo. 308,406 P.2d 337 |
| Parties | Bertie M. STILLINGS, Administrarix of the Estate of Ray Stillings, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lrene J. DAVIS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Frank D. Allen, Frank Allen, Jr., Akron, William B. Paynter, Richard B. Paynter, Kenneth C. Scull, Brush, for plaintiff in error.
Kenneth N. Kripke, Denver, Earl G. Eby, Brush, for defendant in error.
Irene Davis brought an action ex delicto against Ray Stillings, alleging that she suffered damage as a result of Stillings' negligent driving of truck. Stillings denied any negligence on his part, and averred all the usual affirmative defenses. Trial by jury ensued and, at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, Davis moved for a directed verdict in her favor on the issue of liability, reserving for a determination by the jury the issue of damages. This motion was denied. Thereafter the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and judgment to that effect was duly entered.
Within the time provided by Rule 50(b), R.C.P.Colo., Davis renewed her motion for a directed verdict in her favor on the issue of liabiluty by filing a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and for a New Trial on the Issue of Damages Alone. Upon hearing this motion was granted, and the trial court ordered that judgment be entered for Davis on the issue of liability and that a new trial be granted upon the issue of damages alone.
There has not as yet been a new trial on the issue of damages alone, inasmuch as Stillings immediately sued out a writ of error from this court whereby he now seeks review by us of the trial court's action in granting Davis' aforementioned motion for judgment in her favor on the issue of liability and for a new trial on the issue of damages only. From a purely procedural standpoint, Davis suggests that 'this appeal appears to be premature' in that the order which Stillings seeks to have reviewed by us is only interlocutory in nature, and not a final judgment to which a writ of error would lie. With this contention we are in complete accord.
Rule 111, R.C.P.Colo., with certain exceptions which are not here applicable, provides that a writ of error shall lie from the supreme court to a final judgment of the district court. A final judgment is defined as one which ends the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding. See, for example, Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503, 261 P. 874. Application of this rule to the instant case demonstrates quire clearly that there has been no final judgment which ends the controversy between Davis and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brekke, No. 03SC585, 03SC719.
...Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123, 1125 n. 2 (Colo.1982); D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542, 544, 561 P.2d 5, 6 (1977); Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 310, 406 P.2d 337, 338 (1965). A final judgment legally entitles a plaintiff to collect money damages from an uninsured motorist. C.R.C.P. Section......
-
People v. Jefferson
...pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceedings." Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 310, 406 P.2d 337, 338 (1965). Nevertheless, there is support in our cases for viewing dismissals of particular charges of a multi-count informati......
-
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Brekke, Case No. 03SC585 (CO 1/31/2005)
...Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123, 1125 n.2 (Colo. 1982); D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542, 544, 561 P.2d 5, 6 (1977); Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 310, 406 P.2d 337, 338 (1965). A final judgment legally entitles a plaintiff to collect money damages from an uninsured motorist. C.R.C.P. Section......
-
Bye v. District Court In and For Larimer County
...of the parties involved in the proceeding." D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542, 544, 561 P.2d 5, 6 (1977) (quoting Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 310, 406 P.2d 337, 338 (1965)). The trial court's order pertaining to attorneys' fees satisfied this requirement of finality and could properly ha......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960); Andrews v. Hayward, 149 Colo. 585, 369 P.2d 980 (1962); Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 406 P.2d 337 (1965). Final judgment must terminate the litigation between the parties. Boxwell v. Greeley Union Nat'l Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5......
-
Rule 1 SCOPE OF RULES.
...Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960); Andrews v. Hayward, 149 Colo. 585, 369 P.2d 980 (1962); Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 406 P.2d 337 (1965). Final judgment must terminate the litigation between the parties. Boxwell v. Greeley Union Nat'l Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5......