In re Rains—Rule 59(d)—Proper Grounds for New Trial
2018 CO 61
Colo.2018Background
- At Erie Municipal Airport two single-runway operations led to a near mid-air collision: Frascona was landing on Runway 33 while Lechtanski was taking off from Runway 15; Frascona’s subsequent go-around stalled and crashed, killing four passengers and the pilot.
- Plaintiffs (heirs) sued both pilots’ estates alleging negligence; the jury returned verdicts finding neither pilot negligent and left apportionment and damages unanswered per instructions.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial under C.R.C.P. 59(d), alleging irregularity, inadequate damages, and error in law; the trial court granted a new trial, calling the verdict a “miscarriage of justice” and suggesting jury confusion possibly tied to a sustained objection preventing an expert from stating apportionment percentages.
- Defendants petitioned to this Court (C.A.R. 21) arguing the trial court abused its discretion because its stated reasons did not fit the exclusive grounds in Rule 59(d).
- The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court’s stated reasons satisfied Rule 59(d)(1) (irregularity) and whether a trial court may grant a new trial for a non-Rule 59(d) reason (e.g., "miscarriage of justice").
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion: the record showed no jury confusion and the sustained objection (even if erroneous) did not constitute a prejudicial irregularity; moreover, a new trial cannot be ordered for grounds outside those enumerated in Rule 59(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s stated reasons fit Rule 59(d)(1) (irregularity) | The verdict was irregular/miscarriage of justice; jury likely confused possibly due to sustained objection to expert apportionment question | The record shows no jury confusion and no prejudicial irregularity; verdict was permissible under instructions | Held: Trial court’s reasons did not constitute an irregularity under Rule 59(d)(1) |
| Whether a jury verdict itself can be a standalone ground for a new trial outside Rule 59(d) | Court may grant new trial when verdict is a "miscarriage of justice" even if not enumerated in Rule 59(d) | Rule 59(d)’s grounds are exclusive; trial courts may not grant new trials for reasons not listed | Held: Trial courts may not order new trials for reasons outside Rule 59(d); “miscarriage of justice” alone is insufficient |
| Whether sustaining objection to expert’s apportionment question warranted a new trial | Excluding the expert’s apportionment testimony prevented fair consideration and likely confused jury | Jury was properly instructed and verdict form followed instructions; the exclusion did not likely affect outcome | Held: Sustained objection, even if erroneous, was not a prejudicial irregularity justifying a new trial |
| Whether standard for abuse of discretion was met in granting new trial | Plaintiffs: trial court did not abuse discretion in granting new trial given perceived miscarriage of justice | Defendants: trial court misapplied Rule 59 and acted beyond permissible grounds | Held: Trial court abused its discretion; order granting new trial vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Blecker v. Kofoed, 714 P.2d 909 (Colo. 1986) (shifting burden of proof constituted irregularity warranting new hearing)
- First Nat’l Bank of Canon City v. Campbell, 599 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1979) (omission of necessary jury instruction is an irregularity)
- Acierno by & through Acierno v. Garyfallou, 409 P.3d 464 (Colo. App. 2016) (non-prejudicial attorney misconduct and changed witness testimony did not warrant new trial)
- Koch v. District Court, 948 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1997) (trial court abuses discretion when it orders new trial on grounds not enumerated in Rule 59(d))
- Steele v. Law, 78 P.3d 1124 (Colo. App. 2003) ("miscarriage of justice" language relates to inadequate-damages analysis under Rule 59(d)(5), not a free-standing ground)
- Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens, 36 P. 848 (Colo. 1894) (older authority on judge’s view of jury comprehension; not controlling post-Rule 59 limits)
- People v. Flockhart, 304 P.3d 227 (Colo. 2013) (jurors presumed to follow instructions)
- Roberts v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del., 735 P.2d 894 (Colo. App. 1986) (relied on Owens; court overruled to extent inconsistent with Rule 59)
- Burenheide v. Wall, 281 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1955) (discussed older Rule 59 ground for insufficiency; that ground was removed in 1985)