An oft stated maxim in litigation is, “Relevance for purposes of discovery (e.g., interrogatories, requests for production) is different from relevance regarding admissibility of evidence at trial.” And sometimes the proponent of that maxim also adds that the admissibility of the requested evidence is not a consideration in discovery. That is where the proponent would be wrong.
Continue Reading...At common law, compensation paid to the injured person from a collateral source, independent of the tortfeasor, did not reduce the damages owed by the tortfeasor.
Now, by statute (C.R.S. 13-21-111.6), the trial court will reduce the verdict by the amount of collateral sources - except that the verdict cannot be reduced by compensation paid to the plaintiff as a result of a contract entered into and paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff. Quite often this "contract exception" swallows up the general rule of the statute, as shown in the cases below.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
