Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment amount awarded in a jury trial against Volunteers of America Colorado Branch and Volunteers of America Foundation-Colorado. The plaintiff challenged the trial court's decision to allow the defendants to assert affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of risk, claiming these were abrogated by the Colorado Premises Liability Act (PLA) as interpreted in Vigil v. Franklin. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike these defenses, which were presented to the jury, leading to a reduction in the plaintiff's awarded damages. On appeal, the court reviewed the applicability of these defenses de novo, acknowledging the 2006 PLA amendment that allows such defenses, but confirming they do not apply retroactively to the plaintiff's pre-amendment case. The appellate court also addressed the trial court's reduction of the plaintiff's damages under the collateral source rule, finding it erroneous due to the contract exception within the statute. The court concluded that disallowed amounts from the plaintiff's insurer fall under this exception, preventing a reduction in damages. Thus, the court reversed the trial court's reduction of the award and remanded for recalculation while affirming other aspects of the judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmative Defenses in Premises Liability Cases pre-2006 Amendmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that affirmative defenses like comparative negligence were not applicable to premises liability cases accruing before the 2006 amendment.
Reasoning: The court ruled that the 2006 amendment changed the law, not merely clarified it, thereby preventing defendants from asserting these affirmative defenses in cases that accrued before the amendment took effect.
Application of Comparative Negligence under the Premises Liability Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the 2006 amendment to the PLA allows for comparative negligence, but since Tucker's cause of action accrued before this, the defenses were deemed inapplicable.
Reasoning: The court finds that the 2006 amendment to the PLA explicitly allows for comparative negligence and assumption of risk to apply to actions under the PLA, but because Tucker's cause of action accrued prior to the amendment's effective date, the defenses are deemed applicable.
Collateral Source Rule and Contract Exceptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's reduction of the damages award based on the collateral source rule was reversed, as the disallowed amounts from the insurer fall under the contract exception.
Reasoning: The court's interpretation of the statute indicates that these disallowed amounts fall under the contract exception to the collateral source rule, which should preclude such deductions from the damages award.
Contract Exception to Collateral Source Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the contract exception includes disallowed amounts from the plaintiff's insurer, preventing reduction of damages by insurer's savings.
Reasoning: The contract between the plaintiff's insurer and health care providers, which lowered the medical costs, benefits the plaintiff and fits within the contract exception to section 13-21-111.6.