Qwest Services Corp. v. Blood
2011 Colo. LEXIS 428
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Blood injured climbing a Qwest-owned pole P5905 during work for Xcel; pole failed due to decay, causing paraplegia and multiple injuries; trial showed no pre-accident pole inspections by Qwest for 46 years, though JUC referenced Edison Electric Institute/NESC as accepted methods; Blood alleged Qwest’s failure to implement a periodic inspection program caused the accident and requested exemplary damages; Qwest argued lack of a contractual material term and waiver by Xcel; trial court allowed limited evidence of post-accident practices and Blood sought trebling under 18-21-102(1)(a) and (8).
- Background (continued)
- JUC Article XII shifted some liability between Qwest and Xcel; court allowed Blood to introduce evidence of post-accident conduct to prove willfulness/wantoness, while the jury was instructed to focus on pre-accident conduct; exemplary damages awarded $18 million, nearly the compensatory amount of $21 million; court trebled damages under §18-21-102(8) for continued conduct, then appealed.
- Background (continued)
- Colorado Court of Appeals upheld most of the exemplary damages award; Qwest sought certiorari on two issues: facial/as-applied challenges to §18-21-102(1)(a)/(1)(b) and the de novo review of the award under Gore guideposts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13-21-102(1)(b) violates due process by allowing harm to nonparties in assessing willful and wanton conduct. | Blood argues Philip Morris limits consideration of nonparty harm. | Qwest contends statute permits punishment for nonparties and lacks safeguards. | No facial violation; statute appropriately limits willfulness analysis. |
| Whether as-applied, trial court failed to protect Qwest from punitive damages based on post-accident conduct. | Blood asserts limited instruction insufficient; post-accident evidence tainted award. | Qwest claims instruction and door mechanism prevented improper consideration. | As-applied challenge rejected; limiting instruction adequate. |
| Whether the jury instruction and timing of evidence satisfied due process under Philip Morris. | Blood contends post-accident evidence could be used to punish for nonparties' harm. | Qwest asserts risk of punishment for nonparties; instruction cured risk. | Instruction satisfied due process; no reversal on this ground. |
| Whether the $18 million exemplary damages award is grossly excessive under Gore. | Blood argues ratio and reprehensibility justify award near compensatory amount. | Qwest argues ratio/absolute size violate due process. | Award not grossly excessive; Gore guideposts support near-equal ratio. |
Key Cases Cited
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (limits on punishment for harm to nonparties; requires limited-purpose instructions)
- BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (three Gore guideposts for punitive damages review)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (reprehensibility, ratio, and penalties comparison framework)
- Cooper Indus. v. Gore, 532 U.S. 438 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (guideposts and de novo review for excessiveness)