Opinion
June 13, 1972.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Eugene Deikman, Harry K. Nier, Jr., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas W. Gibb, Joseph W. Opstelten, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
ENOCH, Judge.
This action was brought by Juanita Dominguez, plaintiff-appellant, against Carl Koeppen, defendant-appellee, for injuries allegedly suffered in an automobile accident in which defendant backed his vehicle into the front end of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict of liability against defendant, and submitted to the jury the issues of whether plaintiff sustained injuries as a proximate result of defendant's negligence and, if so, the amount of the damages. A single verdict form was given to the jury, which read, 'We the jury, find the issues herein joined for the plaintiff, Juanita M. Dominguez, and against the defendant, Carl A. Koeppen, and assess her damages in the sum of ---.' This verdict was returned with plaintiff's damages assessed as 'Zero dollars.' Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered on this verdict.
I.
Plaintiff first contends that the jury verdict was improper because the trial court's finding of liability required that the jury find some damages. We do not agree.
Although the trial court ruled that defendant's negligence caused the accident in question, it was necessary that the jury find that plaintiff's injuries, if any, were proximately caused by that negligence in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to damages. There was conflicting evidence on both issues of whether defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and the amount of the plaintiff's damages, if any, resulting from the injuries. There was testimony and exhibits indicating that the automobile collision was very slight and a considerable amount of undisputed evidence that plaintiff had pre-existing injuries. Under these circumstances, the jury's verdict was a determination in favor of defendant on either or both of these issues. The evidence is sufficient to support this conclusion, and it will, therefore, not be disturbed. Bennett v. Lansaw, 152 Colo. 200, 381 P.2d 40.
II.
Plaintiff next contends it was error for plaintiff's employer's report of a subsequent accident to have been admitted into evidence. This report stated, 'Chronic low back syndrome. Laminectomy (1954). Since then multiple acute episodes.' Plaintiff alleges this report was hearsay. Assuming the introduction of the exhibit was error, the information was cumulative of other properly received evidence, and its reception was, therefore, not reversible error. See Briola v. Roy, 170 Colo. 97, 459 P.2d 288.
III.
Plaintiff also contends that the trial court erred in failing to give a tendered instruction pertaining to defendant's liability for subsequent accidents aggravating the original injury. We find no merit in plaintiff's argument inasmuch as the subject matter of the tendered instruction was adequately covered in an instruction that was given. Arapahoe Basin, Inc. v. Fischer, 28 Colo.App. 580, 475 P.2d 631.
Judgment affirmed.
DWYER and PIERCE, JJ., concur.