Opinion ID: 1247709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Burden of Proof When Successive Injuries Occur.

Text: Hashimoto contends that Marathon and Dixon have the burden in a successive impact case to prove and apportion the damages resulting from injuries for which they are responsible or, if that apportionment is not possible, Marathon and Dixon may then be liable for all damages. We disagree. For this first impression issue in this state, the trial court correctly applied the reasoning of Bruckman v. Pena, 29 Colo. App. 357, 487 P.2d 566 (1971). Bruckman is a case remarkably similar where the plaintiff was injured in two automobile accidents occurring within a little less than a year of each other. Defendants were the owner and driver of the truck involved in the first collision, and the plaintiff claimed aggravation of the first injuries caused by a second collision. That court held it was error to give an instruction which placed the burden of proving plaintiff's disability on the defendants since their liability should be limited to the damages proximately caused by their negligence. Bruckman, 487 P.2d at 568. We are cognizant, as was the Bruckman court, of the principle that when a tort-feasor injures someone with a pre-existing condition, he is liable for the total damage when no apportionment between the pre-existing condition and the damage defendant caused can be made. Thus, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. See Alexander v. White, 488 P.2d 1120, 1123 (Colo. App. 1971), where the Bruckman situation is distinguished from a pre-existing condition scenario. [B]ut it is quite another thing to say that a tort-feasor is liable, not only for the damage which he caused, but also for injuries subsequently suffered by the injured person. Bruckman, 487 P.2d at 568. The ultimate injuries were caused by the second collision which is a distinct intervening cause because the first injuries had stabilized. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to hold Marathon and Dixon liable for the entire damage when no correlation between the two accidents was shown. Essentially, Hashimoto did not prove that the second collision, which was the subsequent injury-producing act, was a sequela of the first collision. Additionally, no foreseeability of the second accident was shown by Hashimoto and consequently, the first injuries were not the proximate cause of the second accident. Proximate cause cannot be established by mere guess or conjecture, but rather must be proved by evidence of probative force as based upon reasonable probabilities and which precludes the fact finder from having to make an arbitrary choice between unproved conclusions. State Nat. Bank of El Paso v. Farah Mfg. Co., 678 S.W.2d 661, 691 (Tex. App. 1984). Hashimoto has shown no reason for this court to abandon the general rule that one injured by the negligence of another is entitled to recover the damages proximately caused by the act of the tort-feasor, and the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish that the damages he seeks were proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant. Bruckman, 487 P.2d at 568. See also Annotation, Proximate Cause: Liability of Tortfeasor for Injured Person's Subsequent Injury or Reinjury, 31 A.L.R.3d 1000, 1003-04 (1970). In accord with our result, see Guerrero v. Bailey, 658 P.2d 278, 279 (Colo. App. 1982), where the original and subsequent injuries were not physical in nature; Brown v. Kreuser, 38 Colo. App. 554, 560 P.2d 105, 109 (1977); Alexander, 488 P.2d at 1125-26; Jurney v. Lubeznik, 72 Ill. App.2d 117, 218 N.E.2d 799, 806 (1966); Becker v. D & E Distributing Co., 247 N.W.2d 727, 729 (Iowa 1976); McGuire v. Oliver, 227 So.2d 149 (La. App. 1969), where the plaintiff was involved in three accidents within seventeen days; Bolin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 204 So.2d 49, 51 (La. App. 1967); Watkins v. Hand, 198 Neb. 451, 253 N.W.2d 287, 289 (1977); Armstrong v. Bergeron, 104 N.H. 85, 178 A.2d 293, 294 (1962); Williams v. Gragston, 7 Ohio App.3d 369, 455 N.E.2d 1075 (1982); and 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 115 (1988). See also G. Douthwaite, Jury Instructions on Medical Issues, ch. 9 at 512 (3d ed. 1987) which differentiates the Bruckman situation from one where the second injury is a result of ordinary medical malpractice. This decision on burden of proof dispositively resolves Hashimoto's first five issues as presented by these facts.