RQ Law Blog

Case Law Update

Colorado Supreme Court People v. Flockhart – Court declines to adopt a per se rule on challenges for cause. (SC 07/01/13).  In this criminal matter, the Court holds that while the better practice is for challenges for cause to be heard outside of the jury, a trial court retains discretion to conduct challenges for cause in open court.  Planning Partners International, LLC v. QED, Inc. – Court holds that determination...
Continue reading
  3928 Hits
3928 Hits

When Cats Attack

While I have been unable to find any statistics for cat-bite claims, the Insurance Information Institute estimates that in 2012, insurers across the country paid nearly $489 million in dog bite claims.  Bite cliams tallied about one-third of all homeowners liability payouts in 2012.  I recently had a jury trial where the Plaintiff alleged she was viciously attacked by a house cat, causing permanent injury and scarring.  There was no doubt...
Continue reading
  2548 Hits
2548 Hits

Summer Case Law Update

Court Of Appeals Krol v. CF&I Steel – Court of Appeals limits ‘statutory employee’ immunity (CA 03/14/13). The Court of Appeals found that an injured party does not merely have to have been “on” the landowner’s property when performing work for the statute to apply, but the injured party also must have been doing work “to” the property for the statutory employer immunity to apply. Engeman Enterprises, LLC v. Tolin...
Continue reading
  2334 Hits
2334 Hits

Subpoena Change

Subpoenas in Colorado – Recent Changes to Rule 45 by Casey Quillen Recently there have been two important changes regarding the use of civil subpoenas.  It is important to understand these changes, not only for how subpoenas should be used to obtain documents, but also for responding to them.   The first significant change to Rule 45 was the case of In Re: Marriage of Wiggins, a Colorado Supreme Court...
Continue reading
  3856 Hits
3856 Hits

Spring Case Update

Colorado Case Law Update Ruebel & Quillen, LLC COURT OF APPEALS Banning v. Prester – Court of Appeals holds that duty to mitigate does mean a duty to cease ineffective medical treatment (CA 12/27/13). Prester negligently drove his vehicle, causing a low-speed rear-end collision with Banning’s vehicle. Banning sought medical attention for neck and back pain, ultimately resulting in huge medical damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the...
Continue reading
  2332 Hits
2332 Hits