Caldwell v. Kats

567 P.2d 371, 193 Colo. 384, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 830
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided July 18, 1977·No. C-1057·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE GROVES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to review the opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeals to be found in 38 Colo. App. 156, 555 P.2d 190. We reverse and direct affirmance of the district court’s judgments.

The petitioners (Caldwells) purchased 74 Hereford heifers from the respondent K and R Livestock Commission Co. (K&R), which it in turn had purchased from the respondent Hein. Caldwells claimed that K&R had represented that the heifers were bred to black Angus bulls. Later when the heifers dropped their calves, it was apparent that the sires were not black Angus bulls. The Caldwells brought action for damages against K&R and it in turn asked for indemnity from Hein. Under the jury’s verdicts, judgment was entered against K&R in favor of the Caldwells for $22,050, and K&R recovered judgment against Hein in the amount of $11,025.

The court of appeals reversed principally because (1) the verdicts were inconsistent, (2) certain evidence should not have been admitted, and (3) the jury was not properly instructed.

Assuming that the verdicts were inconsistent, the fact remains that under the instructions given the jury was authorized to render these verdicts. The parties did not tender instructions to remedy the situation and, therefore, we leave them in the posture in which they placed themselves.

The evidence which was inadmissible, according to the court of appeals’ opinion by reason of lack of causal connection, was of Caldwells’ veterinary and drug bills and labor charges. No one requested at trial that the jury be instructed to disregard this testimony.

Error as to instructions involves instructions given without objection or instructions not tendered.

*386 The strategies employed by the parties during the trial and the manner in which the case was tried makes this a case in which the verdicts and judgments should not be overturned. Any trial conduct which might constitute reversible error was not raised during the trial and is not of a magnitude to be considered as plain error.

The opinion of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause returned to that court for remand with directions to affirm the district court.

MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN does not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caldwell v. Kats, 567 P.2d 371, 193 Colo. 384, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 830 (Colo. 1977).

567 P.2d 371 (Caldwell v. Kats) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tait Ex Rel. Tait v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.
49 P.3d 337 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2001)
Taylor v. Grogan
900 P.2d 60 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1995)
Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. East Hampden Associates Ltd.
903 P.2d 1180 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1995)
Camino Real Mobile Home Park Partnership v. Wolfe
891 P.2d 1190 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1995)
In Re the Marriage of Huff
834 P.2d 244 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)
Bayless v. Milstein
765 P.2d 1069 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1988)
Mailloux v. Bradley
643 P.2d 797 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1982)
Kennedy-Fudge v. Fink
644 P.2d 91 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1982)
Soehner v. Soehner
642 P.2d 27 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1981)
Sussex Real Estate Corp. v. Sbrocca
634 P.2d 999 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1981)
Romero v. Parker
619 P.2d 89 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1980)
Mitten v. Weston
615 P.2d 60 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1980)
Hayes v. North Table Mountain Corp.
608 P.2d 830 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1979)
Millenson v. Department of Highways
590 P.2d 979 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1978)