Opinion
July 15, 1975.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 475
Costello & Kofoed, P.C., David L. Kofoed, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Duane O. Littell, Peter F. Jones, Denver, for defendants-appellants.
PIERCE, Judge.
Plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendants Frank & Company and its employee, Poleschook, for damages arising out of a collision between plaintiff's automobile and a truck driven by Poleschook. We affirm.
The evidence presented at the trial was conflicting on the issue of negligence. There was, however, supportive evidence of plaintiff's contention that defendants' negligence proximately caused injury to plaintiff, and there was also evidence to the effect that the injuries occurred as a consequence of plaintiff's negligence. The jury found both plaintiff and defendants to have been negligent, and apportioned the negligence as being 85 per cent chargeable to defendants and 15 per cent of plaintiff.
The substance of all of defendants' allegations of error is that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case and that, therefore, defendants were entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of negligence. A detailed discussion of all of the evidence tending to show negligence on the part of both drivers would not be fruitful. Suffice it to say that the accident occurred at an intersection and that there was dispute as to the location of the two vehicles, both within and without the intersection, at the time the light turned yellow, and as to the actions of the two drivers thereafter. The evidence presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence against either driver, so it would not have been proper to direct a verdict against either party on that issue. Gossard v. Watson, 122 Colo. 271, 221 P.2d 353; See Powell v. Ouray, 32 Colo.App. 44, 507 P.2d 1101. Hence, the issues regarding responsibility for the accident were properly placed in the hands of the jury for its resolution. And, since there are facts which reasonably support the jury's allocation of negligence, we will not overturn its determination on appeal. Buchanan v. Brandt, 168 Colo. 138, 450 P.2d 324. Defendants also maintain that the trial court erred in failing to give certain instructions. We do not agree. The charge to the jury stated the necessary law and included, in substance, the content of the tendered instructions; therefore we find no error in this regard. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Kerns, 172 Colo. 59, 470 P.2d 34; Coors v. Brock, 22 Colo.App. 470, 125 P. 599.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.