 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vista Resorts11/18/2004
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Hume and Plank, JJ., concur
In this product liability action, defendant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Vista Resorts, Inc., for breach of implied warranty, strict product liability, failure to warn, negligence, fraud, and violation of the former version of ยง 6-1-113 of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). We affirm the judgment and remand for a hearing on attorney fees.
Vista built and sold six luxury residences in Beaver Creek. The homes included similar hydronic radiant heating systems, installed by Vista or its subcontractors, which circulated heated water and antifreeze through rubber hoses in the floors. Chiles Power Supply, d/b/a Heatway Radiant Floors and Snowmelting, contracted with Goodyear to supply rubber hose for use in the hydronic heating systems, called "Entran II." Vista purchased this hose from Heatway.
When the Entran II hose leaked and caused major damage in one of the homes, the six homeowners replaced all the Entran II hose in their residences. They sued Vista, Heatway, and Goodyear.
Through a settlement agreement, the homeowners assigned all their claims against Heatway and Goodyear to Vista. On Goodyear's motion to dismiss the homeowners, the trial court substituted Vista for the homeowners under C.R.C.P. 25(c) as the sole plaintiff. Heatway filed for bankruptcy and was dismissed, leaving Goodyear as the sole defendant.
The jury found for Vista on all claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Goodyear appeals two evidentiary rulings, but does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court entered judgment for compensatory damages, trebled under the CCPA (which Vista accepted in lieu of punitive damages), attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Goodyear challenges the constitutionality of treble damages as applied, but does not otherwise contest the amount of the judgment.
I. Assignment of Punitive and Treble Damages
Goodyear contends the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider punitive damages and awarding treble damages under the CCPA because those claims were not assignable by the homeowners to Vista. We conclude the doctrine of invited error precludes our considering the merits of this contention.
The invited error doctrine prevents a party from inducing an erroneous ruling and then seeking to benefit by appealing that error. A party's affirmative action during litigation triggers this doctrine and usually bars appellate review of alleged error arising from such action. Horton v. Suthers, 43 P.3d 611 (Colo. 2002).
Here, Goodyear moved for the complete substitution of Vista as the real party in interest under C.R.C.P. 25(c) and for dismissal of the homeowners under C.R.C.P. 56. Goodyear quoted from the homeowners' settlement agreement with Vista and asserted that the homeowners "assigned, transferred and conveyed all their interests in claims and causes of action, together with any remedies" against Goodyear. Goodyear further asserted that the homeowners should be dismissed because their continued inclusion "as straw plaintiffs . . . would only be misleading and confusing." According to Goodyear, the homeowners had "ulterior motives -- to pose [themselves] as injured homeowners (albeit extremely wealthy multi-home owners now more than fully compensated), or to not have a jury trial between the real parties -- the developer and two manufacturers."
The homeowners opposed Goodyear's motion, noting that "joinder or substitution under Rule 25(c) does not alter substantive rig
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|