Colorado’s top verdicts in 2024 saw a majority share related to personal injury, representing 30% of the cases. Roughly a third of the state’s top verdicts in 2023 were related to breach of contract claims and more than half of the top 10 verdicts in 2022 involved medical malpractice or personal injury.
For 2024, other high-dollar-amount verdicts came from product liability, at 20% of the verdict share, alongside medical malpractice, breach of contract, condemnation, unlawful monopoly and premises liability cases.
The following case information was collected and shared with Law Week Colorado by The Jury Verdict Reporter of Colorado.
$67,349,380.53 (gross)
Leo Nunez, by and through his co-conservators, Jasmine Le Nunez and Jonathan Michael Nunez, v. Comprehensive Care Services, Inc.
Case No.: 2021 CV 31606
Judge: Denver District Court Judge Andrew McCallin
Trial Dates: July 8 – 24, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Jim Puga and Molly Greenblatt (Leventhal Puga & Braley), Denver, Colorado, and Sommer Luther (Wagstaff Law Firm), Denver, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: Kari Hershey and Katherine Brim (Hershey Decker Drake, PLLC), Lone Tree, Colorado
Type of Claim: Medical malpractice: vicarious liability against Comprehensive Care Services
Verdict Summary:
On May 21, 2019, Leo Nunez, who was seven months old, had a ventricular septal defect/atrial septal defect, or VSD/ASD, repair at Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children. The surgery is an open-heart surgery to repair an abnormal hole between the left and right ventricles of the heart. The parties stipulated that Dr. Vinod Sebastian, a cardiothoracic surgeon, made a surgical error and ligated the descending aorta during surgery. The tie in the descending aorta partially obstructed the flow of oxygenated blood to Nunez’s abdomen and lower body. During the procedure, a lack of perfusion went unnoticed and was untreated for more than seven hours. Nunez was taken back to surgery, the ligature was removed and blood flow delivery was returned to his lower body. Aspergillus, a common mold, crossed the blood brain barrier, seeded in Nunez’s brain and caused permanent brain damage. Before trial, Nunez’s parents Jasmine Le Nunez and Jonathan Michael Nunez settled with Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children, Sebastian, anesthesiologist Jeffrey Waldman, pediatric critical care physician Alicia Herrera and the estate of pediatric cardiologist Douglas Christensen. At trial, there was a vicarious liability claim against Comprehensive Care Services, the only remaining defendant. The Nunez family alleged that two of CCS’s employees, Clinton Pernsteiner and Seiler Purdy provided perfusion services during Nunez’s surgical procedure. The Nunez family alleged that the perfusionists were negligent and were a cause of the Nunez’s claimed injuries and damages. CCS denied that Pernsteiner and Purdy were negligent during the initial surgery and denied causation of Nunez’s claimed injuries, damages and losses. CCS asserted that all operating room staff worked under the surgeon, Sebastian, who was responsible for his surgical error. CCS contended that the designated nonparties were negligent and were a cause of Nunez’s injuries, damages and losses.
Verdict: For the Nunez family: $67,349,380.53 (gross) with 7% negligence charged to CCS, 65% negligence charged to nonparty Sebastian, 15% negligence charged to nonparty Waldman, 12% negligence charged to nonparty Christensen, 1% negligence charged to nonparty Herrera and 0% negligence charged to nonparty HCA-HealthOne, LLC (doing business as Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children).
$56,575,000
Lorelle Thompson v. Ford Motor Company
Case No.: 2022 CV 541
Judge: U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Maritza D. Braswell
Trial Dates: April 8 – 17, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Tony Buzbee and Thomas Holler (The Buzbee Law Firm), Houston, Texas; Bradley Leger and Rodney K. Castille (Leger Ketchum & Cohoon, PLLC), The Woodlands, Texas; Michael Blanton (Gerash Steiner, PC), Denver, Colorado, and Bradly J. Holmes (Bradly J. Holmes PC), Englewood, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: John R. Bibb Jr. and Ryan Clark (Lewis Thomason), Nashville, Tennessee; Theresa W. Benz (Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP), Denver, Colorado, Bryan D. Cross and Gabrielle L. Schneiderman (Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, LLP), Denver, Colorado
Type of Claim: Product liability: design defect, strict liability, negligence, and punitive damages
Verdict Summary:
Lorelle Thompson alleged that the shift control system in the 1998 Ford Expedition was defective and unreasonably dangerous and the defect was a cause of injuries, damages and losses she sustained. On the evening of Dec. 27, 2016, Thompson drove her 1998 Ford Expedition to the community mailbox on her street. She said she put the car in park and got out of the vehicle to get her mail. She slipped on ice and fell, and her car started moving backwards and ran over her left leg. She claimed that Ford Motor Company used improper shift tube bushing which allowed looseness in the shift control and allowed the vehicle to be placed in a “false park.” Thompson claimed that the defect in the shift control system caused the vehicle to unintentionally move in reverse. Ford denied that the 1998 Ford Expedition was defective and claimed Thompson was negligent and didn’t place the vehicle in park before she got out.
Verdict: For Thompson on the strict liability, negligence claims: $56,575,000. 100% negligence charged to Ford Motor Company and 0% negligence charged to Thompson.
Note: The court entered judgment for Thompson and against Ford for $56,575,000. Ford filed post-trial motions and is reviewing its options for appeal.
$55,500,000 (gross)
Georgina Perez v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Solutions, and Newell Brands, Inc.
Case No.: 2021 CV 1915
Judge: U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Trial Dates: December 9 – 13, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Michael Burg, Holly Kammerer, Shane Fulton and Hannah Huston (Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh Jardine, PC), Englewood, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: David J. O’Connell (Goldberg Segalla, LLP), Chicago, Illinois, and Conor Boyle (Hall & Evans, LLC), Denver, Colorado
Type of Claim: Product liability – strict liability for sale of a defective product – based on design defect, sale of defective product based on failure to warn, and negligence
Verdict Summary:
Georgina Perez bought a Crock-Pot Multi-Cooker in November 2018. Perez alleged that the product was manufactured by Sunbeam Products, Inc. and Newell Brands, Inc. Perez alleged she was cooking beans in the pressure cooker on June 3, 2019, when the Multi-Cooker malfunctioned. The pressure cooker’s lid detached, exploded 35 feet into the air and scalding hot beans and liquid came down onto Perez’s face, neck, arm and chest and caused second- and third-degree burns. Perez alleged that before she was injured, the defendant knew that 104 customers had been burned, including 99 with second- or third-degree burns, when the pressure cooker’s lid detached while under pressure. Sunbeam and Newell didn’t recall the Crock-Pot Multi-Cooker until 2020. Perez alleged the Multi-Cooker was defective because of a design defect and because Sunbeam and Newell failed to provide her with adequate warnings and instructions. Perez also claimed Sunbeam and Newell were negligent for failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent the Multi-Cooker from creating an unreasonable risk of harm, and she alleged her injuries were caused by Sunbeam and Newell’s negligence. Sunbeam and Newell asserted the affirmative defense of comparative negligence with respect to Perez’s product liability claims. Newell Brands denied it was a manufacturer or seller of the product. Sunbeam and Newell disputed the nature, scope and extent of Perez’s claimed damages, and denied that punitive damages were warranted.
Verdict: For Perez and against Sunbeam and Newell: $55,500,000 (gross) with 10% fault charged to Perez, 27% fault charged to Sunbeam and 67% fault charged to Newell.
$30,000,000 (gross)
Steven Straughen v. BHS, Inc. a/k/a BHS, Inc. of Wyoming
Case No.: 2021 CV 2230
Judge: U.S. District Court Judge Nina Wang
Trial Dates: February 5 – 9 and February 12 – 15, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Kurt Zaner, Lia Rottman and Adam Fonta (Zaner Harden Law, LLP), Denver, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: Kate McDonald and N. Rioux Jordan (McConaughy & Sarkissian, PC). Denver, Colorado, and Derek MacKay (Knight Nicastro MacKay, LLC), Kansas City, Missouri, and Jennifer Vedra (Knight Nicastro MacKay, LLC), Denver, Colorado
Type of Claim: Negligence – personal injury
Verdict Summary:
Steven Straughen alleged he sustained catastrophic injuries at an oil and gas fracking site on Dec. 12, 2019. He was on top of a fracking tank when it exploded. Straughen was catapulted into the air and landed 27 feet away. He sustained an open book pelvic fracture, a displaced hip fracture, tibia fracture, a mild traumatic brain injury and other injuries. Straughen claimed that BHS, Inc. delivered defective tanks to the site and claimed holes in the tank caused the explosion that injured him. Straughen alleged that BHS was negligent and that its negligence caused his injuries and damages. BHS admitted it supplied a total of 10 tanks which its drivers set in the locations directed by others and then left the site. BHS denied it delivered tanks with alleged defects, and asserted that Straughen was negligent and a cause of his own injuries and damages. BHS also asserted that nonparties Skyline Well Testing, LLC and Schneider Summit Services, LLC were negligent and a cause of Straughen’s injuries.
Verdict: For Straughen: $30 million (gross) with 80% negligence charged to BHS, 15% negligence charged to nonparty Skyline Well Testing, 5% negligence charged to nonparty Schneider Summit Services and 0% negligence charged to Straughen.
Note: The court granted Straughen’s motion to increase the non-economic damages cap, and ordered that judgment enter for Straughen and against defendant BHS for $936,030 in non-economic damages, $8,000,000 in economic damages and $4,000,000 in damages for physical impairment or disfigurement for a total of $12,936,030, plus pre-judgment interest from the date of injury and post-judgment interest. Straughen is entitled to costs. Other post-trial motions are pending including BHS’s motion for a new trial.
Est. $24,811,493
BlueRadios, Inc. v. Kopin Corporation
Case No.: 2016 CV 2052
Judge: U.S. District Court Judge John L. Kane
Trial Dates: March 20 – April 22, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Stanley Gibson and Lena Streisand (Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP), Los Angeles, California, David Seserman (Seserman Law, LLC), Denver, Colorado, and Joseph Kovarik (Sheridan Ross, PC), Denver, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: Joshua M. Dalton (Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP), Boston, Massachusetts; Julie S. Goldemberg and Harvey Bartle IV (Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Kandis C. Gibson (Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP), Washington, DC; and Ehsun Forghany (Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP), Palo Alto, California
Type of Claim: Breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, trade secret misappropriation under the Colorado Uniform Trade Secret Act, trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and correction of patent inventorship
Verdict Summary:
In 2006, BlueRadios was developing products and intellectual property involving Bluetooth and wireless connectivity. At that time, defendant Kopin Corp manufactured small screens and wanted to incorporate those micro-displays into a head-mounted computing device. Kopin searched for a company to help it develop a product line called the “Golden-i” and approached BlueRadios. In 2007, the parties entered into a nondisclosure agreement and a contract to work together on the Golden-i project. In 2008, Kopin gave BlueRadios written notice it was terminating the contract, and the parties entered into an addendum that modified some of the contract terms. In 2009, Kopin secretly started to collaborate with companies other than BlueRadios to develop the Golden-i and used BlueRadios’ technology to do so. BlueRadios claimed that Kopin: breached the parties’ contract and contract addendum, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriated BlueRadios’s trade secrets during the development of Golden-i technology and misappropriated trade secrets when Kopin obtained patents that included BlueRadios’ technology that did not name BlueRadios employees as inventors or BlueRadios as an owner of the patents. BlueRadios asserted that Kopin misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act and in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. BlueRadios also claimed that Kopin engaged in intentional, wrongful conduct that prevented BlueRadios from knowing about the existence of the breach of contract or misappropriation before Aug. 12, 2013. Finally, BlueRadios alleged that Kopin failed to pay BlueRadios royalties on Kopin’s sale of Golden-i units, misappropriated BlueRadios’ technology and BlueRadios claimed damages and exemplary damages. Kopin denied BlueRadios’s allegations and asserted that BlueRadios knew, or should have known, of the existence of the breach of the contract before Aug. 12, 2013, and denied that it engaged in intentional, wrongful conduct that prevented BlueRadios from knowing of the existence of the breach of contract before that date.
Verdict: For BlueRadios on the breach of contract claim: $5,114 general damages and $3,500,000 disgorgement damages for breach of contract. For BlueRadios on the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim: $600,000 general damages and $7,200,000 disgorgement damages. For BlueRadios on the misappropriation of trade secrets under CUTSA: $591,660 unjust enrichment damages and $1,183,321 exemplary damages. For BlueRadios on the misappropriation of trade secrets under DTSA: $3,910,466 for unjust enrichment damages and $7,820,932 exemplary damages. For BlueRadios on the correction of inventorship claim.
Note: Post-trial motions are pending including BlueRadios’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs and motion for permanent injunction.
$18,809,431
Monica Hastings, as next friend on behalf of Michael Hastings, v. En Route Logistics, Inc.; Alfredo Velasquez and Daniel Achin-Mensah
Case No.: 2022 CV 32915
Judge: U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bailey
Trial Dates: April 29 – May 3, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Paige Singleton and Jessica McBryant (The Ramos Injury Firm), Northglenn, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: En Route Logistics Inc. and Alfredo Velasquez: Conor Boyle, Jared Ellis and Tucker Allen (Hall & Evans, LLC), Denver, Colorado Daniel Achin-Mensah: Joshua Proctor and James Harvey (Ross-Shannon and Proctor, PC), Lakewood, Colorado
Type of Claim: Personal injury – rear-end collision
Verdict Summary:
Michael Hastings, a 47-year-old developmentally disabled man, was injured on March 25, 2022, when he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Daniel Achin-Mensah. Hastings was being transported to an adult day care camp operated by nonparty Venezia Innovative Services. Achin-Mensah was driving a 2021 Kia Sorento south on Tower Road approaching East 40th Avenue in Aurora, Colorado, when Alfredo Velasquez rear-ended Achin-Mensah’s vehicle. Hastings was a passenger in the middle row of defendant Achin-Mensah’s vehicle. Velasquez was driving a 2010 Ford F150 pickup truck and was within the course and scope of his employment with En Route Logistics when the collision occurred. Hastings alleged that Achin-Mensah and Velasquez were negligent and claimed respondeat superior against En Route Logistics for the negligence of its employee, Velasquez. Before trial, Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Swyft Fleet Management were dismissed. Hastings dismissed claims against Venezia Innovative Service. Achin-Mensah said he slowed his vehicle when he saw an object in his lane of travel, and Velasquez rear-ended his vehicle. Achin-Mensah denied negligence. En Route Logistics and Velasquez denied negligence and asserted that Achin-Mensah was negligent for stopping suddenly and without warning, and Hastings’s claimed injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part by the negligence or fault of Achin-Mensah and the nonparty Venezia Innovative Services. The defendants denied causation of Hastings’s brain injury and asserted that Hastings had pre-existing conditions.
Verdict: For Hastings: $15,809,431 for economic losses and $3,000,000 for physical impairment with 100% negligence charged to Velasquez and En Route Logistics, 0% negligence charged to Achin-Mensah and 0% negligence charged to nonparty Venezia Innovative Services. For Hastings and against Velasquez and En Route Logistics, total damages of $18,809,431.
Note: Judgment entered for Achin-Mensah and against Hastings on Hastings’s claims. Post-trial motions are pending.
$7,401,721.90
BNSF Railway Company v. Alan S. Agnew
Case No.: 2021 CV 30270
Judge: Weld County District Court Judge Shannon Douglas Lyons
Trial Dates: February 26 – March 1, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Jacob Woods and Jaclyn Laferriere (Hall & Evans, LLC), Denver, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: Donald M. Ostrander and Elizabeth D. Rubinstein (Hamre Rodriguez Ostrander & Prescott, PC), Englewood, Colorado
Type of Claim: Condemnation
Verdict Summary:
The jury was to determine the amount of just compensation for BNSF Railway Company’s acquisition of a portion of respondent-landowner’s property and damages to the remainder. The court ruled that the project substantially impaired access to respondent-landowner’s remaining property, making access damages compensable. The parties disagreed about the value of the property taken and damages to the remainder due to substantially impaired access after the taking.
Verdict: The jury determined that the value of the property taken is $1,923,300, and the damages to the residue are $5,478,421.90. Total: $7,401,721.90 Plus statutory interest of approximately $1.6 million and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
$7,110,624
Deysi Cari v. Natalie J. Vona Messersmith
Case No.: 2023 CV 31539
Judge: Denver District Court Judge Jill Dorancy
Trial Dates: September 23 – October 1, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Darin Schanker and Michael Stegman (Bachus & Schanker, LLC), Denver, Colorado; Jessica Reynolds (Pendley Baudin & Coffin, LLP), Plaquemine, Louisiana, and Zachary Wool (Barrios Wool, LLC), New Orleans, Louisiana
Defendant Attorneys: Deana Dagner (Dagner Schluter Werber, LLC), Greenwood Village, Colorado
Type of Claim: Personal injury – pedestrian/auto collision. Admitted liability
Verdict Summary:
Deysi Cari was crossing the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and East Eastmoor Drive in Denver, Colorado, on March 31, 2021. Natalie Vona Messersmith’s vehicle struck Cari while she was in the crosswalk with the right-of-way. Messersmith admitted liability for the collision. The jury had to determine the nature and extent of injury and the amount of damages, if any, caused by the collision.
Verdict: For Cari: $7,110,624.
Note: Judgment entered for Cari and against Messersmith for $7,110,624 plus pre-judgment interest of $2,428,793.60 for a total of $9,539,417.60. Cari filed a bill of costs. Messersmith filed a motion for JNOV. The court struck Messersmith’s expert witness Laura Rieffel, PhD, a neuropsychologist, and Messersmith plans to file an appeal.
$6,784,042
Chase Manufacturing Inc. d/b/a Thermal Pipe Shields v. Johns Manville Corp.
Case No.: 2019 CV 872
Judge: U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty
Trial Dates: April 22 – May 3, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Eric R. Olson, Sean Grimsley and Isabel Broer (Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray, LLC), Denver, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: Gregory J. Kerwin and Ryan T. Bergsieker (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP), Denver, Colorado, and Rachel Brass (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP), San Francisco, California, and Marcellus A. McRae (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP), Los Angeles, California
Type of Claim: Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act – unlawful monopolization
Verdict Summary:
Calcium silicate or “calsil” is used to insulate extremely hot pipes in industrial facilities such as oil refineries, chemical and power generation plants and pulp and paper mills. In 2018, Thermal Pipe Shields started to sell calsil in the U.S. For several years prior to 2018, Johns Manville Corp. was the sole domestic manufacturer of calsil. TPS alleged that when it tried to enter the calsil market, JM threatened its customers that they would lose access to JM’s products if they purchased from TPS. TPS alleged that JM also disparaged the quality of its product to discourage potential customers. TPS alleged it didn’t get a significant market share despite having a superior product and claimed lost profits of approximately $21.30 million. TPS claimed that JM willfully maintained monopoly power in the market by making anticompetitive threats between March 8, 2018, and June 30, 2020. JM denied TPS’s claim and asserted it doesn’t have a monopoly or monopoly power in the relevant market. JM denied it made anticompetitive threats to withhold products from its distributors. JM disputed at trial that TPS has any admissible evidence that any insulation distributor declined to purchase TPS calsil based on alleged actions by JM. JM alleged that TPS didn’t prove any damages.
Verdict: For TPS, $6,784,042. The jury’s award was trebled, under the Sherman Act, and judgment was entered for TPS for $20,352,126.
$5,300,000 (gross)
Danford “Dan” Marin v. Robert D. Affleck
Case No.: 2022 CV 30535
Judge: Boulder District Court Judge Robert Gunning
Trial Dates: July 15 – 18, 2024
Plaintiff Attorneys: Sande Hagen, Anastasia Evans and Zeke Maggard (The Wilhite Law Firm), Denver, Colorado
Defendant Attorneys: Michael Milstein and Steven Wienczkowski (Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP), Denver, Colorado
Type of Claim: Premises liability – fall from a ladder
Verdict Summary:
Robert Affleck hired Dan Marin to perform some tasks at his home. On Oct. 30, 2021, Marin was at Affleck’s property to help Affleck and his wife prepare for a move. Marin said he asked Affleck to hold a ladder for him as he climbed up to remove decorative trim around a window, and he claimed that Affleck walked away. Marin fell into some rose bushes and fractured his spine and injured his shoulder. Marin alleged that Affleck knew or should have known about a danger on the property and failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against it. Affleck denied that he was holding the ladder as Marin claimed, and alleged Marin was negligent because he didn’t follow ladder safety rules. Affleck claimed that Marin set up the ladder in an unsafe location and angle on a slippery surface.
Verdict: For Marin: $5,300,000 (gross) with 85% negligence charged to Affleck and 15% negligence charged to Marin. Net amount: $4,505,000.