Bruckman v. Pena
487 P.2d 566 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tortfeasor is liable only for the damages proximately caused by their negligence and cannot be held liable for injuries a plaintiff sustains from a subsequent, distinct, and intervening cause. If damages cannot be apportioned between the initial injury and the subsequent one, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the extent of damages caused by the original tortfeasor.
Facts:
- On July 21, 1964, a car carrying William Pena collided with a truck driven by Charles E. Bruckman.
- The truck was owned by Armored Motors Service.
- William Pena sustained personal injuries as a result of this first collision.
- On June 11, 1965, nearly a year later, Pena was involved in a second, unrelated collision.
- The second collision aggravated certain injuries Pena had sustained in the first collision.
Procedural Posture:
- William Pena, a minor, by his mother, and his parents individually, filed suit in a Colorado trial court against Charles E. Bruckman and Armored Motors Service.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned verdicts in favor of William Pena for $50,000 and his parents for $8,063.
- Judgments were entered on the verdicts.
- The defendants, Bruckman and Armored Motors Service, appealed the judgments to the Colorado Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction erroneously hold a defendant liable for the entire disability of a plaintiff when a subsequent, distinct injury aggravated the plaintiff's original condition and the jury cannot apportion the damages between the two incidents?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Dwyer
Yes. A defendant cannot be held liable for injuries a plaintiff received from a subsequent and distinct cause for which the defendant was in no way responsible. The instruction was in error because it impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, requiring them to apportion the damages or else be liable for the entire disability, including that from the second accident. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving pre-existing conditions (like in Newbury v. Vogel), where a tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of an aggravated injury. Here, the aggravation was caused by a distinct, intervening event, and holding the original tortfeasor liable for it violates the fundamental principle that a plaintiff must prove the damages proximately caused by the defendant's negligence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule for pre-existing conditions and the treatment of subsequent, aggravating injuries. While a tortfeasor must take a plaintiff as they find them, including any pre-existing frailties, their liability does not extend to harm caused by separate, unrelated events that occur after their tortious act. The decision reinforces the core tort principle of proximate cause, ensuring that a defendant's liability is confined to the direct consequences of their actions. It firmly places the burden on the plaintiff to segregate damages, preventing the original defendant from becoming an insurer for all future misfortunes that might befall the plaintiff.
Unlock the full brief for Bruckman v. Pena