When evaluating a claim for personal injuries, such as those caused by a car accident,
insurance companies often place great weight on whether the injured victim suffered similar injuries
in the past. If so, the insurance company will likely offer a reduced amount to settle any
such claim prior to litigation. Oftentimes, claimants are forced to file a lawsuit in order to
obtain fair compensation for their injuries, particularly when prior injuries were substantially
“aggravated” or made worse by the subject car crash. It is critical to be well
versed on the state of Colorado law on this matter before filing a lawsuit for injuries and damages
where the insurance company is arguing that the claimants damages were actually caused by a
The Governing Colorado Jury
Before filing a lawsuit where there is an
issue of a pre-existing injury, a skilled attorney will always consult the Colorado Jury
Instructions on the matter. The relevant Jury Instruction on this Matter is C.J.I. 6.8.
This Instruction allows the Jury to award damages for injuries even if prior to the date of
the car crash, he/she suffered similar injuries to the same body part. Specifically, the
instruction asks the Jury to determine:
1. Whether before the date of the
accident the Plaintiff suffered from an injury/ailment.
2. Whether the
defendant was negligent; and
3. Whether the defendant’s negligence made
the Plaintiff’s injury/ailment/condition worse.
If the Jury answers all
of the above questions “yes,” then they are then instructed on their duty to calculate
the Plaintiff’s damages and distinguish between those damages caused by the pre-existing
injury and those caused by the Defendant’s negligence. This principle is commonly
referred to as “apportionment.” Importantly, the Jury is instructed that if they
cannot determine which damages were caused by the preexisting injury or ailment, and which were
caused by the Defendant, then “the defendant is legally responsible for the entire amount of
Cases Discussing the Aggravation and Apportionment
The above Colorado Jury Instruction 6.8 is
based on and supported by several Colorado Supreme Court and Appellate Court cases. First, in
the case of Hylton v. Wade, the Colorado Supreme Court held that this Jury Instruction is applicable
even though the Plaintiff may have previously received a damage recovery for the preexisting
condition at issue.
The above instruction should be given only in
situations involving a “pre-existing injury” and not a subsequent event or injury
suffered by a Plaintiff. On this point, the Colorado Court of Appeals, in Smartt v. Lamar Oil
Co., held that in such a fact situations, where the Plaintiff suffered a “subsequent
injury” that was not the fault of the Defendant, Jury Instruction 6.8 should not be
Finally, the Court of Appeals held in Lascano v. Vowell, that if the
term “aggravated,” used in the above instruction would be ambiguous when applied to a
particular factual situation, then the term should either not be used in the instruction or should
be further defined in the Jury Instructions.
For more information on
personal injury litigation and cases involving the aggravation of pre-existing injuries, please
contact the experienced attorneys at Bell & Pollock,
Hylton v. Wade, 29 Colo.App.
98, 478 P.2d 690 (1970).
Lascano v. Vowell, 940 P.2d 977 (Colo. App.
Smartt v. Lamar Oil Co., 623 P.2d 73 (Colo.App.
The Bell & Pollock Legal Blog
(hereinafter “Blog”), and all contents contained therein, including but not limited to,
posts, comments and links, are for educational and informational purposes only. They are not
legal advice or legal opinions.
We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the
accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this Blog.
Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a
lawyer-client relationship between Bell & Pollock, its attorneys, and/or the Blog’s
authors, and you. The author and/or attorneys at Bell & Pollock, its employees, agents, or
others that provide information on or through this Blog will not be liable or responsible to you for
any claim, loss, injury, liability, or damages related to your use of the information contained in
this Blog or to any site linked to this Blog.
Disclaimer: The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks; AV, BV, AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are registered certification marks; Lawyers.com and the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated Icon are service marks; and Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are trademarks of Internet Brands, Inc., used under license. Other products and services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.