2015 COA 170M
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Charlene Dickinson was injured reaching to open a door leading to her workplace and sued Lincoln Building Corp. (LBC), Wells Fargo, and security company G4S for negligence/premises liability.
- LBC and Wells Fargo were timely served but did not answer or appear for nearly a year; the district court entered default against them and later conducted a damages hearing awarding Dickinson damages, interest, and costs.
- LBC and Wells Fargo moved to set aside the default (C.R.C.P. 55(c) / 60(b)) and later sought reconsideration; both motions were denied, and they appealed those denials.
- At the damages hearing the defaulted parties sought to introduce evidence of Dickinson’s comparative fault and G4S’s pro rata liability; the court excluded that proof as beyond a damages-only hearing.
- Separately, G4S went to jury trial, which returned a verdict for G4S; Dickinson challenged the trial court’s refusal to give a negligence-per-se instruction based on a Denver building-code provision and moved for a new trial; both rulings were appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside default entered against LBC and Wells Fargo | Dickinson argued service of the original complaint was proper and default was appropriate | LBC/Wells argued due-process violation because they were not served with the C.R.C.P. 60(b) reinstatement motion and that the complaint was not well-pleaded | Held: No abuse. Default was valid; once in default C.R.C.P. 5(a) does not require service of subsequent motions on defaulted parties; court properly applied good-cause analysis and equitable considerations to deny relief. |
| Whether defaulted defendants may present comparative negligence or pro rata liability evidence at a damages hearing | Dickinson argued default admits liability and limits damages hearing to quantum only | LBC/Wells argued they must be allowed to show plaintiff or nonparties were at fault to reduce their damages exposure | Held: Default admits liability and allegations; comparative negligence and pro rata liability are affirmative/substantive defenses that primarily address liability and thus cannot be litigated at a damages-only hearing after default. |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing a negligence-per-se instruction against G4S based on Denver Building Code §3303(c) | Dickinson argued the Code applied to the door and violation constituted negligence per se | G4S argued the Code governs door construction/latching mechanisms (not a security contractor’s conduct) and plaintiff failed to show injuries the Code was meant to prevent | Held: No error. The Code provision governs door design/latches (not G4S’s locking conduct), plaintiff did not show her injury was the kind the provision was intended to prevent, and any instructional error was not prejudicial. |
| Whether denial of a new trial (re: negligence-per-se instruction) was erroneous | Dickinson argued the missing instruction prejudiced her and warranted retrial | G4S argued the jury found no causation/negligence so any error was harmless | Held: No abuse of discretion; verdict shows jury found G4S not negligent or causation lacking, so error (if any) was not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman Assocs., LLC v. WP Mountain Props., LLC, 222 P.3d 310 (Colo. 2010) (standards for relief from default under C.R.C.P.)
- Singh v. Mortensun, 30 P.3d 853 (Colo. App. 2001) (entry of default deemed admission of liability; damages hearing limited to quantum)
- First Nat’l Bank v. Fleisher, 2 P.3d 706 (Colo. 2000) (de novo review of due-process notice issues)
- Kwik Way Stores, Inc. v. Caldwell, 745 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1987) (default establishes liability; defendant may contest damages)
- Sumler v. Dist. Court, 889 P.2d 50 (Colo. 1995) (C.R.C.P. 60(b) and standards for vacating judgments)
- B.G.’s, Inc. v. Gross, 23 P.3d 691 (Colo. 2001) (comparative fault framework and allocation of damages)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Martin, 209 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2009) (comparative negligence and pro rata liability characterized as affirmative defenses)
- Calise v. Hidden Valley Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 773 A.2d 834 (R.I. 2001) (default precludes raising comparative fault at damages hearing)
- Harless v. Kuhn, 403 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1981) (when default entered for failure to plead, defendant may contest damages only; comparable fault inadmissible)