Case Title: JC Penney Company v. Brown

Citation: 393 P.2d 575

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1964-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
393 P.2d 575 (1964) J. C. PENNEY COMPANY and Roger L. Moreno, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Jewell W. BROWN, Defendant in Error. No. 20407. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. June 29, 1964. Rehearing Denied July 20, 1964. *576 Wood, Ris & Hames, Denver, for plaintiffs in error. George T. Ashen, Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiffs in error were defendants and defendant in error was plaintiff. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident which occurred June 1, 1960. The case came on for trial March 26, 1962, at which time counsel for defendants, before a jury was impanelled, admitted liability and the cause proceeded to trial to a jury for the determination of the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $100,918.63. Judgment entered on the verdict and motion for new trial was filed and denied by the trial court. The grounds for reversal of the judgment are presented by defendants under six separate captions, in one of which it is urged that the trial court erred in giving to the jury Instruction No. 8 regarding the measure of damages. Said instruction reads as follows: To the giving of this instruction counsel for defendants made the following objections: We have carefully examined the testimony introduced upon the trial of this case and are unable to find anything in the evidence on which the jury could base an award of damages for any loss of earnings which the plaintiff might sustain in the future. Actually the evidence discloses that plaintiff earned more money after the accident than he had earned prior thereto. Before an award of damages for future *577 earnings can be sustained there must be come evidence in the record upon which such an award can be based. In The Diamond Rubber Company et al. v. Harryman, 41 Colo. 415, 92 P. 922, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 775, this court said, inter alia: The Harryman case was cited with approval on this point in Pawnee Farmers Elevator and Supply Co. v. Powell, 76 Colo. 1, 227 P. 836, 37 A.L.R. 6. The verdict which the jury returned in the instant case is for a very substantial amount of money, and counsel for plaintiffs in error strenuously argue that it is grossly excessive. Conceivably the jury could have included in the amount of its verdict a substantial sum for loss of earnings for which there was no support in the evidence. We cannot say that the error of the court in permitting the jury, under Instruction No. 8, to speculate upon the loss of future earnings, did not prejudicially affect the rights of the defendants. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on the sole question of damages sustained by the plaintiff.