Opinion
Jan. 26, 1971
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Peter Razatos, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Wormwood, Wolvington, Renner & Dosh, Richard W. Laugesen, Denver, for defendants in error.
COYTE, Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The parties appear here in the reverse order from their appearance at trial but shall be referred to as they appeared below or by name.
Two issues are presented on appeal, (1) whether the evidence supports the verdict of the jury, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion is refusing to grant plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
The facts show that defendant Form and Pour Company's truck was being driven by defendant Carroll Driver Wine, when it struck the rear end of plaintiff's automobile. Five years later plaintiff brought suit for $50,000 in damages, alleging negligence on the part of the defendants. Defendants denied the allegations of the complaint and affirmatively claimed that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury under proper instructions returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
Proceeding on a presumption favoring the validity of the jury's findings, we have reviewed the record for evidence to sustain the verdict, resolving all questions of credibility and permissible inferences in defendants' favor. Cottingham v. Star Bus Line, 152 Colo. 188, 381 P.2d 25.
Under this principle we find the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. The evidence indicated that defendant was traveling down a hill at a reasonable rate of speed when plaintiff, who was driving in the same lane of traffic immediately ahead of defendant Wine, abruptly slowed her vehicle without warning and signaled for a right turn. Defendant Wine claimed that under the circumstances he was unable to halt the truck in time to avoid striking plaintiff's automobile.
The mere fact that plaintiff's automobile was struck in the rear does not make defendant liable as a matter of law where there is sufficient evidence to indicate a sudden or abrupt slowing by plaintiff without warning. Under such circumstance, it is for the jury to determine the issue of negligence and contributory negligence. Gomez v. Miller, Colo., 459 P.2d 126.
The second argument raised by plaintiff is that the trial court should have granted her motion for a new trial since the verdict was in error as a matter of law. However, since the verdict was supported by the evidence as indicated above, the refusal to grant plaintiff's motion was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and ENOCH, J., concur.