Bruckman v. Pena

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division I · 1971 · Torts

487 P.2d 566 (1971)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDamagesApportionmentSuccessive injuriesproximate causesuccessive accidentsintervening causejury instruction

Facts

Plaintiff was injured in a 1964 collision involving defendants' truck and later suffered a second injury in a 1965 collision that aggravated some of the first injuries. In this action, plaintiff sued only the owner and driver involved in the first collision. The trial court instructed the jury that if damages from the first and second injuries could not be apportioned, defendants were liable for the entire disability. Before trial, the court also barred references to the second collision, and to claims and compensation arising from it, unless counsel first obtained permission outside the jury's presence.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendants in the first accident were liable for the plaintiff's entire disability if the evidence did not permit apportionment between the first injury and a later aggravating injury. Also, whether the court properly limited evidence about the second accident and the plaintiff's claims arising from it.

Rule

A tortfeasor is liable only for damages proximately caused by his negligence, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the damages sought were so caused. The rule making a defendant liable for entire indivisible harm when a pre-existing condition cannot be apportioned does not apply to a later distinct injury or aggravation caused by an intervening cause; in that situation, the first tortfeasor is not liable for the subsequent injury whether or not apportionment is possible.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Kim was rear-ended by a delivery van driven by Owen Pike. Eight months later, Nora fell from a ladder while painting her garage in Tucson, and doctors testified that the fall worsened the same lower-back condition. In Nora's negligence suit against Owen alone, the medical experts cannot separate how much of her present back disability came from the crash and how much came from the later fall.

What is the best instruction on damages?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a defendant is liable only for damages proximately caused by his own negligence, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that causal link. A later distinct injury or aggravation caused by an intervening event does not become chargeable to the first tortfeasor merely because the resulting condition cannot be apportioned.