Chapter 11 - § 11.4 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF SETTLEMENT

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 11.4 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF SETTLEMENT

In Landsberg v. Hutsell, 837 P.2d 205 (Colo. App. 1992), one of the issues was whether the trial court had erred in refusing to permit the defendants to put on evidence that one of the plaintiffs in a wrongful death action had settled a claim against another plaintiff. The court held that exclusion of the evidence required reversal of the judgment.

This case arose from an accident that occurred on August 15, 1986. A semi-tractor driven by James E. Hutsell and owned by R. L. Harrison Trucking Company collided with a car towing a camper trailer rented from Arlene Little. The plaintiff, Robert H. Skaggs, was driving the car and was accompanied by his spouse, Tammy Skaggs, and their five children. Tammy was killed, and Skaggs and the children were injured in the accident. On August 17, 1987, Skaggs commenced a wrongful death action against Harrison, Hutsell, Little, and General Motors Corporation claiming damages for himself and as representative for the decedent's children. He also sought damages for his own personal injuries and expenses. After the commencement of suit, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed for the children, and the GAL joined as a party plaintiff. In an amended complaint, the GAL made claims against the originally named defendants for wrongful death and for the personal injuries suffered by the children. Skaggs reasserted his own claim but did not purport to prosecute the wrongful death claim. The GAL also filed a separate action against Skaggs claiming damages on behalf of the children for Skaggs's negligence in causing Tammy's death and their injuries. The two cases were consolidated, and before trial all claims against General Motors were voluntarily dismissed and the GAL's claims against Skaggs were settled. The GAL's personal injury claims for three of the children against the defendants were also settled. Hutsell, Harrison, and Little denied that the accident was caused by their negligence and asserted that Skaggs's negligence was a defense against his claims. The defendants also named Skaggs as a contributing non-party tortfeasor in the GAL's wrongful death action. The claims involved at trial included the GAL's wrongful death claim, the GAL's claims for personal injury on behalf of two of the children, and Skaggs's claims for personal injuries and expenses.

The jury assessed damages of $500,000 as the aggregate pecuniary loss stemming from the wrongful death of Tammy Skaggs, $50,000...