 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morales v. Golston12/15/2005
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Vogt and Román, JJ., concur
Plaintiff, Sue Morales, appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, Brandon M. Golston, on her claim for the wrongful death of her mother. We affirm and remand for correction of the judgment.
Defendant was in an automobile accident with a car driven by plaintiff's father and occupied by plaintiff's mother and daughter. Plaintiff's mother was sitting in the front passenger seat, unrestrained by a seat belt, and plaintiff's three-year-old daughter was sitting in the back seat, unrestrained by a child safety seat. Defendant was traveling westbound on Iliff Avenue, and as he approached the intersection of Iliff Avenue and Peoria Street, the light turned green. Having the light in his favor, he began to accelerate through the intersection. Plaintiff's father was in the left turn lane of Peoria Street when defendant approached the intersection. After defendant's light had turned green, plaintiff's father turned left onto Iliff Avenue against a red light. Defendant's car hit the center passenger side of plaintiff's father's car. As a result of the accident, plaintiff's mother died, and plaintiff's daughter sustained head injuries, including facial lacerations.
Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action on behalf of her mother and a personal injury action on behalf of her minor daughter against defendant. Defendant brought a third-party claim against plaintiff's father, alleging that he caused the accident. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and her father based on a release of claims executed in his favor by plaintiff.
At trial, one investigating officer determined that defendant was traveling at forty miles per hour in a forty-mile-per-hour zone and that he had a green light at the time of the accident. He also testified that plaintiff's father caused the accident by turning left into the path of defendant's vehicle when defendant had the right of way. An eyewitness to the accident testified that defendant had a green light when he entered the intersection. Defendant's reconstruction expert testified that plaintiff's father entered the intersection without having a turn signal; that defendant was traveling at twenty-five miles per hour at the time of impact; that the force of the impact between the two vehicles was between 56,000 and 69,000 pounds; and that the death of plaintiff's mother was a result of the accident. Another eyewitness testified that defendant was traveling in excess of fifty miles per hour at the time of the collision. An accident report indicated that plaintiff's daughter was sitting in the center rear seat of the car.
The jury found that plaintiff's father and defendant were both negligent in causing plaintiff's daughter's injuries. The jury determined that plaintiff's father was ninety percent at fault and defendant was ten percent at fault. As to the wrongful death claim, the jury found that defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not the cause of plaintiff's mother's death.
After the special verdict forms were read into the record by the court, at plaintiff's request, the jury was polled. The court then instructed the jury that its members were free to leave or to speak with counsel, if they desired to do so.
When the jury departed, the court asked whether there was anything further from either counsel. Plaintiff's counsel, for the first time, expressed concern that the jury's verdict as to plaintiff's mother was inconsistent, specifically questioning how the jury could find defendant negligent, but that the negligence was not the cause of her mo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|