 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morales v. Golston12/15/2005
81); Rodriguez v. Morgan County R.E.A., Inc., supra.
Further, questions of negligence and proximate cause are issues of fact to be determined by the jury, and the appellate courts are bound by the jury's findings when there is competent evidence in the record to support those findings. City of Aurora v. Loveless, supra; Rodriguez v. Morgan County R.E.A., Inc., supra. Only if the facts are undisputed and reasonable minds could draw but one inference from them is causation a question of law for the court. Smith v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 749 P.2d 462 (Colo. App. 1987).
It is the jury's sole province to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, and to draw all reasonable inferences of fact therefrom. As a result, a jury's verdict will not be disturbed if there is any support for it in the record. Murphy v. Glenn, 964 P.2d 581 (Colo. App. 1998).
Here, the jury could have determined that plaintiff's father was negligent because he turned in front of defendant when defendant had a green light. The jury also could have found that defendant was negligent because he was exceeding the speed limit to some degree. However, finding defendant negligent in both the personal injury action and the wrongful death action does not necessarily mean that defendant's negligence was the cause of plaintiff's mother's death.
The record shows that the passenger's side, especially the passenger side doors, of plaintiff's father's vehicle sustained substantial damage as compared to the driver's side of the vehicle. The jury also could have concluded that plaintiff's daughter was sitting in the center of the back seat of the car, as indicated in the accident report, rather than next to the back passenger side door.
Accordingly, on the one hand, the jury could have concluded that plaintiff's mother suffered a fatal injury caused by her position in the front passenger seat, directly next to the front passenger side door. In other words, even if defendant had been traveling at or below the speed limit, plaintiff's mother would have been killed because of her positioning in the car and the force of the impact. Therefore, defendant's negligence was not the "but for" cause of plaintiff's mother's death.
On the other hand, the jury could have concluded that defendant's negligence in exceeding the speed limit caused ten percent of plaintiff's daughter's injuries because of her positioning in the back center seat of the car. Thus, absent defendant's negligence, plaintiff's daughter would not have been injured to the extent she was because of her position in the back seat of the car.
Therefore, because the jury verdicts may be resolved on this basis, we will not disturb them on appeal. See Gutierrez v. Bussey, 837 P.2d 272 (Colo. App. 1992).
In light of our holding, we need not address plaintiff's remaining contentions.
II.
The trial court's order of judgment incorrectly states that judgment should enter in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on all causes of action. Because the jury found in favor of defendant on the wrongful death claim, we remand the case to the trial court for a corrected judgment reflecting the jury's verdicts.
The judgment is affirmed, and the case is remanded for correction of the order of judgment.
JUDGE VOGT and JUDGE ROMAN concur.
|