Rosa Lawson v. Safeway, Inc. 878 P. 2d 127 – Colo. Court of Appeals, 3rd Div. 1994

Jun 16, 1994

OUTCOME: Plaintiff prevailed on all claimes

Facts: Plaintiff Lawson, slipped on spilled milk while shopping at Safeway, causing her serious injury. An employee of Safeway, though, not attending to the location of the spill, had, as part of his ... duties, swept other parts of the store shortly before Lawson’s fall. Plaintiff, through her attorney, brought suit against Safeway. Rules of Law: 1. Failure to exercise reasonable care constitutes negligence and the jury instruction need not precisely follow the language to adequately convey the general negligence standard of care. 2. Expert testimony is not required to prove permanent injury. 3. Evidence of the reasonableness of expenses, necessity of treatment and relatedness of injury to incident is not required to be in the form of medical testimony. 4. Proof of damages need not be presented by Plaintiff if the evidence is satisfied by other means. Reasoning: 1. The verbiage of an instruction need not be precise if it can accurately convey the purpose of the instruction. In order to determine if the Court sufficiently instructed the jury regarding the applicable standard of care owed to Plaintiff. After first identifying Plaintiff’s status as an invitee, the standard of care required by Safeway is determined by reasonableness rather than deliberate or willfulness. The trial courts instructions when read as a whole adequately provided the jury with the appropriate standard of care. 2. Plaintiff’s visible scar and testimony was adequate evidence for the jury to make a decision as to if her injuries were permanent. The instruction that the jury could award damages for permanent injury without the support of an expert medical testimony was not improper. 3. As in the previous issue, the instruction that the jury can award damages to Plaintiff did not constitute error, as the burden to prove her medical expenses were reasonable, necessary and related to the accident fell to her, with or without medical testimony would be a matter for the jury to determination if the evidence was sufficient. 4. The fact that Plaintiff did not present evidence of her pre-existing condition which had been aggravated by the fall did not bar an award for damages if the jury so determined, Through evidence offered by the Defendant, the jury was presented with sufficient information to make a determination on damages for the aggravated condition and the trial court was not in error giving the instruction.