Silva v. Wilcox

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division V · 2009 · Torts

TortsDamagesNegligence per seEvidenceDiscoverylost future wagesimmigration statusIRCA

Facts

On a snow-packed city highway, Wilcox's car began to spin as traffic slowed and collided with a bus; Silva claimed the bus then swerved into his truck and injured him, while Wilcox disputed that any bus-truck collision occurred. Silva sought economic and noneconomic damages, including lost future wages. Before trial, Silva moved to exclude evidence of his immigration status and funds borrowed from Injury Management Funding, and the trial court granted the motions without taking evidence or conducting a CRE 403 analysis. At the second trial, the court also gave a negligence per se instruction based on Denver Revised Municipal Code 54.158, and the jury awarded Silva economic damages that included future earning loss.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Silva's immigration status when he sought lost future wages, in refusing to reopen discovery, in giving a negligence per se instruction based on the Denver careless-driving ordinance, and in excluding evidence concerning Silva's injury-financing arrangement. The principal issue was whether immigration status was relevant and potentially admissible on the damages question of lost future wages.

Rule

When a plaintiff seeks lost future wages, inquiry into the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant to damages. But an unauthorized immigrant is not absolutely barred from recovering such wages: the defendant must establish that the plaintiff was in violation of the IRCA or similar employment-related law in securing or holding employment and was unlikely to remain in the United States during the claimed wage-loss period before such evidence may be admitted to limit or preclude recovery. A negligence per se instruction based on a roadway safety ordinance that codifies common law negligence may be unnecessarily cumulative when paired with an ordinary negligence instruction, but it is not erroneous for that reason alone.

🔒

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 a negligence action arising from a warehouse accident in Phoenix, Mateo Rivas seeks damages including lost future wages for the next ten years. The defendant has evidence only that Mateo currently lacks federal work authorization, but no evidence that he used false documents to obtain prior jobs or that he is likely to leave the United States during that period.

Should the trial court admit the immigration-status evidence to limit Mateo's claim for lost future wages?

Explanation. When a plaintiff seeks lost future wages, immigration status has threshold relevance, but the majority rejected both automatic admissibility and an absolute bar. The defendant must establish that the plaintiff was violating the IRCA or a similar employment-related law in securing or holding employment and was unlikely to remain in the country throughout the claimed wage-loss period. Without that foundation, the evidence should not be used to limit recovery. (Derived from Silva v. Wilcox (n.d.).)