“O Captain! my Captain! our fearful [intubation] is done” – Walt Whitman. Two nurses and a doctor made a number of failed attempts to intubate a Patient prior to an Air Life transport. The attempts injured Patient’s throat who sued, among others, the ER doctor and hospital who handed him off to Air Life staff. Plaintiff appealed partial summary judgment in favor of hospital and ER doctor on issues of vicarious liability and certain evidentiary rulings at trial. The court of appeals held: 1) the “captain of the ship” doctrine does not apply to ER doctors and 2) negligent supervision cannot be brought under vicarious liability doctrines. The court also upheld the exclusion of facts plaintiff sought to use for impeachment, including the medical history of the ER doctor and that both the defendant and an expert witness were insured by the same carrier. Trial court’s rulings were affirmed.
Tag Archives: Amended Complaint
William P. Settle and Corinna Settle v. Janet M. Basinger, M.D. and Rio Grande Hospital, 2013COA18 (February 28, 2013)
A cyclist is attacked on federal land during a sponsored race by two “predator control dogs” whose owners had a permit to graze sheep in the area. The trial court granted summary judgment for the owners, finding that the Premises Liability Act (PLA) abrogated the cyclist’s common law tort claims, and a claim under the “dog bite statute” was excluded by the “predator control dogs” exception. The court of appeals disagreed in part. First, because the owners were grazing sheep pursuant to a Forest Service permit, they were “landowners” under the PLA, which abrogated common law tort claims. But, the owners were not in “control of” the land, so the predator control dog exception did not apply. The statutes did not conflict because the remedies under each are different. Finally, the court agreed that a settlement offer from the owners was successfully withdrawn and thus not enforceable.
Certiorari was granted in this case on “Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the working dog exemption to section 13-21-124, C.R.S. (2012), applies only when a bite occurs on a dog owner’s property or property under his or her control, and that “control” of property exists only if one has the right to exclude others from it.”
“Ooops, I sued the wrong person. My bad.” In this Rule 21 original proceeding, plaintiff, the estate of a worker killed on defendant’s property, sued defendant just within the 2 year statute of limitations period. After it passed, it turned out that another party was the proper defendant. Plaintiff moved to amend to include the correct defendant under CRCP 15(c), claiming the amended complaint related back to the timely-filed original complaint. The trial court dismissed because the new defendant was added 116 days after the filing of the original complaint and after the statute of limitations period had run. The Court reversed and held that amending a complaint and serving a new defendant within the time for regular service under CRCP 4(m), 120 days, was a reasonable amount of time. On remand, the trial court must determine if the delay in notice was otherwise unreasonable.