Frances Velasquez v. Dan Gulbranson, 2019 CA 1455 (Colo. App 2021), Not published. Plaintiff appealed a verdict for the defense. Plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred by (1) failing to order a mistrial instead of delaying the trial due to inclement weather; (2) giving the jury an adverse inference instruction as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery requirements under C.R.C.P. 26(a) and (e); (3) denying her post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial under C.R.C.P. 59; and (4) ordering her to pay costs related to an expert witness who didn’t testify at trial. Velasquez also contended that her attorneys failed to competently represent her in this case. The Court of Appeals rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the jury verdict.

​

Whisenton v. Candelaria (2018 CA 001086). Ross-Shannon & Delaney was retained to represent a defendant Candelaria in the Court of  Appeals after the insured received a defense verdict at trial and obtained a favorable decision affirming the jury verdict. The Court of Appeals opinion was not published pursuant to CAR 35.

​

Steven Gallegos v. Meghan Amaral, 2019 WL 481272 (Colo. App 2019), Not published

Plaintiff appealed a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $11,990.03  The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in limiting voir dire to preclude questions regarding liability insurance and in precluding his medical expert from giving non disclosed opinions on injury mechanism.  The plaintiff also argued the court erred in precluding evidence of the plaintiff’s med pay coverage. The plaintiff also argued the jury’s award of zero ($0) damages for non-economic damages was not supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the jury verdict.

​​

Arrington v. Chavez, 646 Fed. Appx. 590 (10th Cir. 2016). A jury returned a defense verdict finding our client was not negligent in striking the plaintiff’s vehicle at a four way intersection under construction. Plaintiff appealed and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and found the plaintiff failed to file an adequate appendix on appeal necessary for appellate review.

 

Lange v. McInnis-Ortega, LEXIS 1422 (Colo. App. 2016). Plaintiff was injured in a car accident involving our client and brought a negligence claim seeking medical expense and non-economic damages. The jury found for plaintiff for an amount less then our offer of settlement.  The plaintiff appealed the jury verdict claiming that a lack of discovery, resulting from a District Court quash of plaintiff’s subpoena seeking additional information on our client’s medical expert, led to a smaller jury verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict citing (1) the fact that plaintiff had already received the disclosure materials required under C.R.C.P. 26; (2) the untimeliness of plaintiff’s subpoena; and (3) the facially defective nature of plaintiff’s subpoena.

​

Patel v. Corcoran, LEXIS 1156 (Colo. App. 2016). Plaintiff brought a negligence claim against our client after he accidentally ran into plaintiff, who was stopped downhill of our client, while our client was snowboarding in Breckenridge, CO. The jury found for the plaintiff awarding $8680.00 in economic damages but did not award non-economic damages. The plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict finding it was supported by the evidence.

 

Murphy v. A Caring Doctor, LEXIS 138 (Colo. S. Ct. 2015). Plaintiff was bitten by a dog and brought a negligence claim against our client, a dog trainer, contending that he failed to recognize fear aggression tendencies of said dog and increased those through training techniques involving exposure to public places without a muzzle. The Trial Court granted our motion for summary judgement concluding that the statute of limitations to bring an action against our client expired before plaintiff brought her action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the motion for summary judgment for our client concluding that a statute of limitations period can commence before the injured party knows of the circumstances of the negligent act which caused injury.

​

Lucero v. Ulvestad, 2015COA98 ( July 16, 2015, Co. App. ).  Plaintiff had significant facial burns from a steam room located on a property owned by uninsured co-defendant who had purchased the home from our client, Mr. Ulvestad, through an installment land contract.  The court denied our Motion for Summary Judgment and our Motion for Directed Verdict that Mr. Ulvestad was not a landowner, but the jury found that Mr. Ulvestad was not liable under the premises liability statute. The plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals confirmed defense verdict,  but found that Mr. Ulvestad was not a landowner and that directed verdict should have been granted in our favor.​

​

Leif v. Beihoffer, 338 P.3d 1136 (Colo. App. 2014).  Plaintiff’s failure to file income tax returns admissible to impeach credibility.  Court has discretion to strike late disclosure of medical treatment.

​

Woods v. Delgar Ltd., 226 P.3d 1178 (Colo. App. 2009).  Building lessee did not owe pedestrian on adjacent sidewalk duty of care to prevent ice from accumulating on sidewalk.

 

Burbank v. Can West, 224 P.3d 437 (Colo. App. 2009).  Municipal snow ordinance does not make public sidewalk property of adjacent property owner for purposed of premises liability statute.

 

Lee’s Mobile Wash v. Campbell, 853 P.2d 1140 (Colo. 1993).  Jury award of $0 damages upheld where jury also found causation and damages from accident.

 

 

 

The firm has also received numerous Court of Appeals’ opinions not selected for official publication affirming defense jury verdicts, finding the  evidence supported the verdict.