Court Opinion

ID: 9795420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:28:34.823088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:56.543137
License: Public Domain

Judge DAVIDSON
specially concurring.
Most civil litigation is outrageously costly. And, if an appellate court finds instructional "plain error," the usual remedy is a new trial. Thus, the paradoxical result of "doing equity" in such cases is that the non-erring party bears the expensive burden of his or her opponent's errors. In my view, if an instructional error is such that it would constitute a miscarriage of justice sufficiently egregious to constitute plain error, then the more appropriate remedy is a legal malpractice action. The inevitable damage award to the erring attorney's client would place the financial burden and responsibility for a mistake of that magnitude where it belongs.
Accordingly, although I recognize that de-cisional law thus far appears to leave the door open for the "rare [civil case] where equitable concerns might warrant appellate review despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection to the jury instructions," see Bear Valley Church of Christ v. DeBose, 928 P.2d 1315, 13881 (Colo.1996), were I writing on the proverbial clean slate, I would follow the reasoning of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, and read C.R.C.P. 51 literally and refuse to recognize any exception to its terms. See Deppe v. Tripp, 868 F.2d 1356 (7th Cir.1988); Hammer v. Gross, 982 F.2d 842 (Oth Cir. 1991) (discussing federal rule).
Accordingly, although otherwise I agree completely with the majority opinion, I write separately here to set out the different reasoning I would follow to reach the majority's result in Part III.