2018 CO 61
Colo.2018Background
- At Erie Municipal Airport two single-runway aircraft nearly collided; Frascona attempted a go-around, stalled, and crashed, killing five passengers; Lechtanski survived. Plaintiffs (heirs) sued both pilots and the plane owner.
- Jury trial: plaintiffs and each defendant presented expert testimony; during cross, Frascona's expert was prevented from stating percentage apportionment after a sustained objection.
- Jury instructions permitted findings that one, both, or neither pilot was negligent and provided for apportionment if negligence was found; the jury returned verdicts of "no" for both pilots and left apportionment blank.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial under C.R.C.P. 59(d), asserting irregularity, miscarriage of justice, and other grounds; the trial court granted a new trial, citing a "miscarriage of justice" and possible jury confusion tied to the sustained objection.
- Defendants petitioned this court for relief; the Supreme Court granted original jurisdiction to review whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial.
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 and jury confused due to objection; supports new trial under Rule 59(d)(1) | Trial court gave no legally sufficient Rule 59(d) ground; record lacks evidence of confusion or prejudicial irregularity | Held: Trial court's reasons did not constitute an irregularity under Rule 59(d)(1) |
| Whether a trial court may grant a new trial for a "miscarriage of justice" outside Rule 59(d) | "Miscarriage of justice" justifies a new trial when verdict is contrary to evidence | Rule 59(d) lists exclusive grounds; courts may not grant new trials for reasons outside that list | Held: A new trial may only be ordered for grounds enumerated in Rule 59(d); "miscarriage of justice" is not an independent ground |
| Whether sustaining the objection to expert apportionment was a prejudicial irregularity | Excluding the apportionment opinion likely confused jurors and affected the verdict | Jury was properly instructed on apportionment; exclusion was not shown to have likely affected the outcome | Held: Sustained objection did not amount to a prejudicial irregularity warranting a new trial |
| Whether the jury's verdict itself can be treated as an "irregularity" | Verdict contrary to the evidence equates to an irregularity justifying retrial | A verdict is the outcome, not an occurrence in proceedings; disagreement with verdict alone insufficient | Held: The verdict itself is not an "irregularity" under Rule 59(d) and cannot alone support a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Aspen Skiing Co. v. Peer, 804 P.2d 166 (Colo. 1991) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 196 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2008) (abuse of discretion review explained)
- Blecker v. Kofoed, 714 P.2d 909 (Colo. 1986) (incorrect burden allocation is an irregularity warranting a 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 testimony did not warrant new trial)
- Koch v. Dist. Ct., 948 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1997) (trial court must state enumerated Rule 59(d) grounds when ordering new trial sua sponte)
- Steele v. Law, 78 P.3d 1124 (Colo. App. 2003) (discusses "miscarriage of justice" in the context of inadequate damages; not an independent Rule 59(d) ground)
- Burenheide v. Wall, 281 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1955) (older law on verdict weight; addressed change in Rule 59 grounds)
- People v. Flockhart, 304 P.3d 227 (Colo. 2013) (presumption that jurors follow instructions)