Summary
In Gray v.Giroux, 730 N.E.2d 338, 339 (Mass.App.Ct.), review denied, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Mass. 2000), the plaintiff and her husband were playing golf with the defendant and his wife.
Summary of this case from Schick v. FerolitoOpinion
No. 81CA0355
Decided March 31, 1983. Rehearing Denied April 21, 1983. Certiorari Denied September 26, 1983.
Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County Honorable Joyce Steinhardt, Judge
Kritzer Chalat, P.C., James H. Chalat, Gerash Robinson, P.C., Walter L. Gerash, for plaintiff-appellant,
White Steele, P.C., Stephen K. Gerdes, for defendant-appellee LTV Recreation Development, Inc.,
John Houlton, pro se.
Division I.
Plaintiff, Jane D. Gray, appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendants, John Houlton and LTV Recreation Development, Inc. (LTV), in her personal injury action for damages arising out of a skiing accident at Steamboat Springs. We affirm.
According to plaintiff's evidence, she was injured when she and Houlton collided on a ski slope operated by LTV. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury was given the special verdict forms for multiple defendants in comparative negligence cases set out in Colo. J.I. 9:40 (2d ed. 1980). In Form A signed by the jury, the first question was whether plaintiff had incurred damages and injuries. Subsequent questions dealt with whether any of the parties were negligent and whether that negligence, if any, was a cause of plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages.
The jury found that plaintiff had not incurred any injuries and damages. It then held that neither plaintiff nor defendant Houlton nor defendant LTV was negligent. Judgment was entered for defendants.
On appeal, plaintiff first contends that the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for directed verdict against defendant Houlton. We do not agree. Viewing the conflicting testimony in a light most favorable to Houlton, we conclude there was evidence, through the testimony of Houlton and witness Schott, to support a finding that Houlton was not negligent. Therefore, the question of his negligence was properly for the jury. Romero v. Denver Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., 183 Colo. 32, 514 P.2d 626 (1973); Pioneer Construction Co. v. Richardson, 176 Colo. 254, 490 P.2d 71 (1971). Credibility, sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of that evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom, are all within the province of the jury. Romero, supra.
Plaintiff next contends that the jury's finding of no injuries and damages was contrary to the undisputed evidence that her leg was broken and that she incurred other injuries as a result of the collision on the ski slope. We agree. However, in view of the findings of no liability in either defendant, the issue of damages became irrelevant and moot, and any potential error was harmless.
Plaintiff also claims error in denying her motion for mistrial because of a question propounded to her medical witness concerning whether the hospital records referred to in his testimony included an opinion of another doctor. Plaintiff's objection was sustained. There was no error in denying a mistrial. Even if a doubt was created as to the testifying doctor's credibility, this testimony pertained only to the issue of damages. Since the jury found for the defendants on liability, any error as to damages was harmless.
Judgment affirmed.
CHIEF JUDGE ENOCH concurs.
JUDGE STERNBERG dissents.