Tag Archives: Choice of Law

Target Corp. v. Prestige Maintenance USA, 2013COA12 (January 31, 2013)

At the heart of contract law is a principle of risk management and allocation. This case involves Prestige indemnifying Target for injuries caused by a Prestige employee. Target sued Prestige after its employee fell and claimed workers’ compensation. The trial court found for Target and awarded damages for past and future damages. Prestige appealed the award of future damages. The court of appeals held: 1) future damages are a substantive issue, not one of judicial administration, so MN law applied as stated in the contract. But, CO law applied to matters regarding the conduct of the litigation: whether an issue was preserved for appeal and the standard of review; 2) the issue was preserved because future damages were addressed during closing and by the court; 3) the award was supported by evidence that the damages were reasonably likely to occur as estimated by an expert. Affirmed.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/12CA0445-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8815&courtid=1

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate Review Challenged, Contracts, Evidence, Personal Injury, Torts

Mark Shoen v. Dr. Samuel Shoen, 2012COA207 (November 21, 2012)

“[T]here is great general interest among television viewers in fascinating true stories with interesting characters and real life dramas … this case certainly has those elements.” A producer of a TV episode called Tragedy in Telluride said that about the facts of this case. In that episode, Sam Shoen implied his brother Mark Shoen, both part of the U-Haul family, was involved in the murder of Sam’s wife. Mark sued Sam for defamation and lost. The court of appeals first held that Mark waived a choice-of-law issue that Colorado defamation law should not apply because the issue was not raised prior to the trial court ruling on dispositive motions. Second, it held that Sam’s statements on TV about the murder of his wife, including criticizing the adequacy of the investigation, were matters of public concern, and thus Mark was required to prove defamation by clear and convincing evidence.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2553-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8757&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Evidence, Torts