Harrison v. Barclay
23CA0700
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 5, 2024Background
- Barclay negligently caused a car accident with Harrison by turning the wrong way down a one-way street in July 2019.
- Harrison initially declined treatment at the scene, but later sought medical care for neck, back, and headache symptoms; lower back pain complaints began only after seeing ProActive Chiropractic.
- Harrison sued Barclay for negligence, seeking economic, noneconomic, physical impairment, and disfigurement damages, including for lower back injuries.
- Barclay admitted fault for the accident but disputed the cause and extent of Harrison's lower back pain, alleging ProActive’s chiropractic care, not the accident, caused those injuries.
- After discovery disputes and delayed disclosures of key medical records, the trial court struck Harrison’s request for future damages as a sanction and allowed Barclay to designate ProActive as a nonparty at fault.
- Jury apportioned fault mainly to ProActive (89%) and awarded Harrison reduced damages; Harrison appealed on the grounds of both sanctions and nonparty designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Striking future damages for discovery violations | Court abused discretion; prejudice was cured by continuance | Repeated nondisclosure prejudiced defense; lesser sanctions tried first | No abuse of discretion; sanction was appropriate |
| Allowing nonparty at fault designation for ProActive | ProActive designation failed to specify standard of care or breach | Harrison’s injury only arose after ProActive’s treatment; sufficient to allege causation | Legally deficient; failed to allege standard or breach; error |
| Jury instruction on original tortfeasor rule | Incorrect instruction; contributed to error | Not addressed due to ruling on nonparty issue | Not addressed due to remand |
| Denying motion to reconsider sanction | Prejudice cured by trial continuance | Continuance was another sanction; discovery issues were ongoing | No abuse; cumulative sanction justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 211 P.3d 698 (Colo. 2009) (standards for discovery sanctions and proportionality)
- Redden v. SCI Colo. Funeral Servs. Inc., 38 P.3d 75 (Colo. 2001) (nonparty at fault designation for licensed professionals must allege standard of care and breach)
- Kwik Way Stores, Inc. v. Caldwell, 745 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1987) (proportionality in discovery sanctions)
- Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 185 P.3d 781 (Colo. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing trial court decisions)