Martinez v. Shapland

Colorado Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceDamagesJury verdict adequacyFuture earning capacityNo-Fault PIP benefitsnegligencedamages

Facts

Defendant ran a stop sign and broadsided plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff presented evidence of head, neck, and back injuries, but that evidence was conflicting. Plaintiff also presented evidence that she developed temporomandibular joint syndrome, and defendant's own medical witnesses agreed she had neck-muscle injury causing jaw pain consistent with TMJ, while a neurologist found objective indications of a TMJ injury. The jury found defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's injuries and losses but awarded zero non-economic damages.

Issue

Whether a jury verdict awarding no damages can stand when the jury found defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's injuries and the evidence undisputedly showed a TMJ-related injury causing pain. Also, whether plaintiff was entitled to an instruction on loss of future earning capacity and whether the court properly instructed the jury not to award damages for losses eligible for PIP coverage.

Rule

A jury verdict will be set aside for inadequacy when, in view of the evidence, it is grossly and manifestly inadequate or so small as to indicate that the jury neglected to consider all evidence of injury. Where undisputed evidence establishes a compensable injury causing pain and suffering, a zero award for non-economic damages is inadequate as a matter of law. An instruction on impairment of future earnings or earning capacity is required when the record contains evidence of earnings and physical limitations from which diminished earning capacity may reasonably be inferred. Losses eligible for PIP benefits under the Colorado No-Fault Act are not compensable in a tort action, and the collateral source statute does not alter that exclusion.

🔒

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.

At an intersection in Pueblo, Nora Kim sued Devin Holt for negligence after a collision. At trial, experts for both sides disputed Nora's claimed shoulder and low-back injuries, but all agreed she suffered a cracked molar and ongoing pain when chewing caused by the crash; the jury found Devin's negligence caused Nora's injuries and losses, yet awarded $0 for non-economic damages.

If Nora moves for a new trial limited to damages, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a verdict should be set aside as inadequate when it is grossly and manifestly inadequate or clearly shows the jury neglected to consider all the evidence of injury. When undisputed evidence establishes a compensable injury causing pain and suffering, a zero award of non-economic damages cannot stand. The jury could reject disputed claims, but it could not award nothing for non-economic loss where all the evidence established crash-related chewing pain.