Thiele v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--563,70--563 |
| Parties | Alexander THIELE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The STATE of Colorado, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Mellman, Mellman & Thorn, P.C., Bernard H. Thorn, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Joseph M. Montano, Chief Highway Counsel, Richard W. Phillips, Deputy Chief Highway Counsel, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Alexander Thiele, the plaintiff, brought this negligence action against the State of Colorado to recover damages for the injuries he sustained when he was wounded by a Colorado State Patrolman.
This suit was authorized by an Act of the Colorado General Assembly, which granted plaintiff the right to bring a civil action 'for alleged damages due to personal injuries sustained and medical expenses incurred, for the purpose of determining whether such damages were due to the alleged negligent acts of the state of Colorado, or any of its departments, boards, officers, agents, or employees . . ..' Colo.Sess.Laws 1968, Ch. 21, § 1.
Trial was to the court. After the plaintiff had completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant moved for a dismissal. The court denied the motion, and defendant rested without presenting any evidence. The court found for the plaintiff, assessed his damages at $177,483, and entered judgment. The amount of the judgment is not in issue on this appeal.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether there is evidence in the record to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial court. More specifically, the defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's injury was caused by the patrolman's negligent use and discharge of his revolver.
On February 3, 1966, a Colorado Highway Patrolman stopped an automobile on Highway 34, east of Akron, Colorado, for a defective taillight. Plaintiff was a passenger in this car which was driven by a Mr. Carron. Carron did not have a valid driver's license, and plaintiff gave him his license before the officer reached the car. The officer asked for Carron's driver's license, and Carron gave him plaintiff's license. The officer then asked a series of questions concerning the license and a bill of sale tendered as evidence of ownership of the car. The officer became suspicious of the pair because of their erroneous answers to his questions. The officer returned to his patrol car, called his headquarters on the radio, and asked for information about the car he had stopped. He was informed that plaintiff and Carron were wanted by law enforcement authorities, and he was instructed to take the pair into custody.
The patrolman returned to the car with his revolver drawn and ordered the occupants out of the car. He warned them not to move or he would shoot and instructed the pair to face the car and lean upon it with their hands on top. The officer searched plaintiff and Carron and found that they were unarmed. The officer then proceeded to handcuff Carron. The officer was standing behind Carron. Plaintiff was standing to the right of Carron and the officer. Plaintiff was facing the car with his hands on top. The officer was using his right hand to put the handcuffs on Carron, and during this process, the officer held his revolver in his left hand pointed at the plaintiff. While handcuffing Carron, the revolver was discharged, and the plaintiff was wounded.
The testimony of the plaintiff, Carron, and the highway patrolman concerning the foregoing facts was not in conflict. However, the highway patrolman's version of the shooting differed from that of the plaintiff and Carron. The officer testified that the plaintiff turned towards him just after he had finished handcuffing Carron and that because of this movement he intentionally shot the plaintiff in self defense. Both the plaintiff and Carron testified that the plaintiff did not move away from the car prior to the time he was shot.
Plaintiff called an expert medical witness, and his testimony tended to discredit the officer's version of the shooting and to corroborate plaintiff's version. The expert testified that the bullet passed through the rear portion of plaintiff's rib cage and severed his spinal cord at the eleventh thoracic vertebra. He stated that this wound could not have been inflicted if the plaintiff had turned towards the officer, but it could have been inflicted in the manner described by plaintiff.
The court found on the basis of conflicting testimony that 'the officer, throughout the episode and up to the time he fired the gun, wounding the victim, had said gun cocked.' Two experts who had examined the patrolman's revolver testified that in a cocked or single action position the revolver could be discharged by a light trigger pull of two and one-quarter pounds. A trigger pull of eight and one-half pounds was required to discharge the revolver in the uncocked or double action position. The testimony of the experts established that the revolver in the cocked position was extremely dangerous.
From the testimony of the witnesses and the facts and circumstances in evidence, two reasonable conclusions could be reached: (1) that the plaintiff's injury was caused by the intentional discharge of the revolver; or, (2) that the injury was caused by the negligent discharge of the revolver. The trial court resolved the conflicts in the evidence in plaintiff's favor and found that the patrolman was negligent in holding a cocked revolver with a light trigger pull in his hand, pointed at plaintiff, while handcuffing Carron. The credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of all the evidence, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricca v. United States
...Gibson v. United States, 457 F.2d 1391 (3d Cir. 1972); Tastor v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 548 (N.D.Cal.1954); and Thiele v. State, 30 Colo.App. 491, 495 P.2d 558 (1972), for On the record before the court, we are constrained to agree with the federal defendants notwithstanding the governm......
-
Casserly v. State
...weight of the evidence or upon a choice between conflicting inferences from the evidence is not clearly erroneous. Thiele v. State, 30 Colo.App. 491, 495 P.2d 558 (1972). Plaintiffs argue the trial court's finding of good faith and reasonableness was clearly erroneous. In support of their c......
-
Burgess v. City of Philadelphia
... ... Plaintiff ... takes issue with this Court's having entered a compulsory ... non-suit against him. The rules state that a defendant's ... attorney may move for a nonsuit following plaintiff's ... production of all of his evidence upon the question of the ... enforce a valid misdemeanor arrest. Loyden v. J.C ... Penney, Co., 352 So.2d 755, 759 (La.App. 1978). But ... see Thiele v. Colorado, 30 Colo.App. 491, 495 ... P.2d 558 (1972) (unlike the case at hand, the trigger was ... cocked and plaintiff was shot in the back) ... ...
-
Quintana v. City of Westminster, 01CA0999.
...Ins. Co., 876 P.2d 1242, 1253 (Colo.1994); West Denver Feed Co. v. Ireland, 38 Colo.App. 64, 551 P.2d 1091 (1976); Thiele v. State, 30 Colo.App. 491, 495 P.2d 558 (1972). The reviewing court will presume that the trial court disregarded incompetent evidence. See In re Marriage of Peterson, ......
-
An Appellate Primer for Family Law Practitioners
...26. In re Marriage of Udis, 780 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1989). 27. In re Marriage of Foottit, 903 P.2d 1209 (Colo.App. 1995). 28. Thiele v. State, 495 P.2d 558 (Colo. 1972). 29. City of Thorton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996). 30.People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1991). 31. P......