AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A tenant sustained injuries after falling through a broken step on a stairway in an apartment complex owned by the landlord. The landlord filed a third-party claim against a real estate and insurance company, alleging negligence in failing to procure liability insurance for the property (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, August 12, 1993: The tenant was awarded $50,000 in damages against the landlord following a bench trial. The landlord's third-party claim against the real estate and insurance company was submitted to a jury, which returned a special verdict denying recovery for the landlord (paras 3, 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Landlord (Appellant): Argued that the trial court erred by not ordering the jury to reconsider its verdict, by determining that the jury's verdict was not inconsistent, and by submitting a flawed special verdict form to the jury (paras 1, 8-9).
• Real Estate and Insurance Company (Appellee): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Did the trial court err in not directing the jury to reconsider its verdict or granting a new trial based on alleged inconsistencies in the jury's findings?
• Was the special verdict form improperly submitted to the jury?
• Was the jury's allocation of fault legally significant despite its finding that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the landlord's damages?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the landlord's third-party claims against the real estate and insurance company (para 18).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):

• The landlord failed to preserve his objection to the special verdict form before the jury retired, as required by precedent (paras 10-12).
• The trial court did not err in dismissing the jury without directing it to reconsider its verdict, as the landlord had the opportunity to raise this issue when the jury was polled but failed to do so (para 13).
• The jury's finding that the real estate and insurance company's negligence was not a proximate cause of the landlord's damages rendered the allocation of fault surplusage and legally insignificant. Under comparative negligence principles, liability requires both negligence and proximate cause (paras 14-17).
• The trial court's judgment was affirmed on the basis that the jury's findings were consistent with the law and supported by evidence (paras 16-18).