Target Corp. v. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd.
2013 WL 363324
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd. contracted to provide cleaning services to Target and agreed to indemnify Target for injuries arising from Prestige's performance.
- A Prestige employee, while using a vacuum, caused Target employee Johanna Cleveland to fall in a Colorado Target store, injuring her knee.
- Cleveland underwent total knee replacement; workers' compensation proceedings initially required Target to pay related costs.
- Target sued Prestige for indemnification of past and future damages from Cleveland's injuries; the trial court found in Target's favor and awarded future damages but adjusted some amounts.
- Prestige appealed the future damages award, challenging sufficiency of evidence, preservation, and the applicable standard of review.
- Colorado appellate court applied Minnesota law to substantive damages issues and Colorado law to judicial-administration issues, including preservation and standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs substantive damages? | Target argues Minnesota law applies to damages. | Prestige contends Minnesota law governs substantive damages only if chosen; otherwise Colorado law. | Minnesota law governs substantive damages. |
| Are future damages preserved for appellate review? | Target argues preservation is met by trial and closing arguments. | Prestige contends preservation was lacking. | Issue preserved for appeal. |
| What standard of review applies to damages findings? | Target asserts deferential review of damages under Minnesota standards. | Prestige argues standard of review issue governs appellate scrutiny. | Colorado law governs standard of review as a procedural/administrative matter; review is deferential to trial court. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support future medical treatment damages? | Target presented multiple witnesses and medical testimony showing likely future treatments. | Prestige claims evidence is speculative and insufficient. | Sufficient evidence supports future medical treatment damages. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support future disability payments and medical-management costs? | Target's experts testified to permanent-total-disability benefits and ongoing related costs. | Prestige contends evidence does not establish amount or existence of such future costs. | Sufficient evidence supports both future disability payments and medical-management costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pietrzak v. Eggen, 295 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. 1980) (need only preponderance for future damages; not future certainty)
- Kwapien v. Starr, 400 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (expert estimation required; not blind speculation)
- Pagett, 167 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 1969) (expert medical testimony not exclusive proving future damages)
- Dornberg v. St. Paul City Ry., 91 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. 1958) (evidence supports future damages with ongoing costs)
- Hewitt v. Apollo Group, 490 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (evidence of need for future care supports damages)
- Thies v. St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, 489 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (increased risk and potential future surgery may support damages)
- Boulder Meadows v. Saville, 2 P.3d 131 (Colo. App. 2000) (damages not required to be unequivocal or certain)