 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vista Resorts11/18/2004
les, all instructions should be considered together. Vikman v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 1269, 889 P.2d 646 (Colo. 1995). Thus, if the other instructions adequately inform the jury of the applicable law, the trial court does not err in refusing a legally correct tendered instruction. Peterson v. Tadolini, 97 P.3d 359 (Colo. App. 2004).
When instructing the jury in a civil case, the trial court shall use those instructions contained in the Colorado Jury Instruction (CJI) that apply to the evidence under the prevailing law. C.R.C.P. 51.1(1). The court's rejection of instructions not contained in CJI is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Garhart ex rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/Healthone, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). Likewise, the form of instructions is vested in the court's discretion. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Kerns, 172 Colo. 59, 470 P.2d 34 (1970).
Here, the trial court gave instructions paralleling CJICiv. 3d 14:18 and 14:20 (1989)(renumbered as 14:1 and 14:4 in CJI-Civ. 4th (2001)), on product liability and duty to warn. Goodyear argues that these instructions were insufficient because they did not reflect the law regarding liability of a component-part manufacturer as set forth in Bond v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 868 P.2d 1114 (Colo. App. 1993), and White v. Caterpillar, Inc., 867 P.2d 100 (Colo. App. 1993), which were decided after publication of CJI-Civ. 3d. We are not persuaded.
A. Product Liability of a Component-Part Manufacturer
Initially, we note that the trial court's basic product liability instruction accurately reflects the elements of a component-part manufacturer's product liability set forth in Bond, as shown in the following side-by-side comparison. The court instructed the jury that it must find Vista proved all the following by a preponderance of the evidence to return a verdict for Vista on the product liability claim:
Instruction No. 27. Bond v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., supra, 868 P.2d at 1118.
The Goodyear Entran II hoses were defective and, because of the defect, the Goodyear Entran II hoses were unreasonably dangerous to a person or the property of a person who might reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the Goodyear Entran II hoses;
(1) The materials or component parts are in a defective condition or without a warning are unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer;
The Goodyear Entran II hoses were defective at the time they were sold by Goodyear;
The Goodyear Entran II hoses were expected to reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold by Goodyear;
The Goodyear Entran II hoses did reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold by Goodyear;
The defect in the Goodyear Entran II hoses was a cause of the [homeowners'] damages or losses;
(2) The product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold;
(3) The design defect or failure to warn is the cause of the plaintiff's injury;
[no instruction because admitted by Goodyear]
(4) The defendant sold the product and is in the business of selling such products; and The [homeowners] had damages or losses.
(5) The plaintiff sustained damages as a result.
This instruction dispels Goodyear's assertion that the jury may have been confused about whether the defect was in the Entran II hose or in the heating systems and whether the defect in the hose arose only on installation of the heati
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.
|
|