Alhilo v. Kliem
2016 COA 142
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Motorcyclist Abdul Alhilo died after colliding with Kliem’s car when Kliem turned left from a car wash across southbound lanes; the motorcycle was traveling ~75–86 mph in a 40 mph zone.
- Jury allocated fault: 55% to Kliem, 45% to decedent; awarded $750,000 noneconomic damages and $1,500,000 exemplary damages.
- After the crash Kliem drove away, stopped blocks away, then fled on foot; police later found beer, an opened vodka bottle, and marijuana paraphernalia in his car. Kliem turned himself in two days later.
- Kliem had two prior DWI convictions; the decedent had prior convictions that led to Habitual Traffic Offender (HTO) license revocation (license suspended).
- Trial court (1) excluded evidence of the decedent’s driving record/HTO status, (2) admitted Kliem’s prior DWI convictions for limited use on exemplary damages, (3) admitted evidence of Kliem’s flight, (4) apportioned noneconomic damages by percentage first and then applied the statutory cap. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of decedent’s driving convictions/HTO status | Evidence should be excluded; §42-4-1713 bars Article 4 convictions in civil actions except as narrowly provided | §42-4-1713’s cross-reference to §§42-2-201–208 permits admission of HTO status and convictions to show dangerousness | Court: §42-4-1713 bars Article 4 convictions in civil actions except for the narrow administrative HTO contexts; HTO status is administrative and was excluded under rules of relevance and prejudice (CRE 401/403) |
| Admissibility of Kliem’s prior DWI convictions | Prior DWIs are relevant to exemplary damages (show awareness and disregard); limited instruction suffices | Prior DWIs are unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant to negligence and exemplary damages | Court: Prior DWIs admissible for exemplary damages; limiting instruction adequate; no abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of evidence that Kliem fled after the crash | Flight is relevant circumstantial evidence of consciousness of liability and explains absence of immediate BAC testing | Flight is irrelevant to causation of the collision and could be innocent (panic) | Court: Flight admissible as circumstantial evidence (consciousness of liability, and to explain lack of direct intoxication evidence); defendant could explain flight; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for exemplary damages (was Kliem intoxicated; must the left turn be unlawful) | Circumstantial evidence (open alcohol, prior DWIs, flight, conduct, testimony) supports finding of intoxication and willful/wanton conduct | Evidence was speculative; left turn was lawful so exemplary damages improper | Court: Circumstantial evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to support exemplary damages; lawful turn does not preclude exemplary award if intoxication caused failure to avoid collision |
| Order of applying comparative fault and noneconomic damages cap | Cap should be applied to plaintiff’s total award first, then apportion to defendants (reduces defendant’s share) | Comparative negligence should reduce the jury’s damage finding first, then the statutory cap limits plaintiff’s recovery | Court: Apportion comparative fault first (reduce jury award by percentages), then apply statutory noneconomic cap to plaintiff’s recoverable amount; affirmed trial court’s method |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard where trial court misapplies law or clearly errs in evidence assessment)
- Ripple v. Brack, 286 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1955) (statutory ban on admission of traffic convictions in civil cases reflects clear legislative purpose)
- State v. Laughlin, 634 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1981) (HTO administrative revocation is a civil proceeding and relies on driving record)
- Bennett v. Greeley Gas Co., 969 P.2d 754 (Colo. App. 1998) (distinguishing admissibility rules for exemplary damages from other evidentiary limits)
- Bush v. Jackson, 552 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1976) (circumstantial evidence and flight admissible to show consciousness of liability)
- Lanahan v. Chi Psi Fraternity, 175 P.3d 97 (Colo. 2008) (noneconomic wrongful-death cap limits plaintiff’s recovery overall, not per defendant)