Court Opinion

ID: 9845398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:21:01.428833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:05.965176
License: Public Domain

VAN CISE, Judge,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority that, on the evidence presented at the trial, the deceased was at least partially negligent as a matter of law. Therefore, the judgment for plaintiff, based on Kroblin being 100% negligent cannot stand.
Also, I see no interdependence between the issues of responsibility for the accident and the amount of damages. See Kitto v. Gilbert, 39 Colo.App. 374, 570 P.2d 544 (1977). Therefore, I concur in the granting of a new trial without including the issue of damages.
However, I do not agree that the new trial should be confined to the sole issue of the percentage of causal negligence attributable to the deceased and Kroblin. This assumes that the identical evidence, no more and no less, will be presented at the second trial — and such a happening is unlikely if not impossible.
I would remand for a new trial on liability.