GENERAL30353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MILLER v. CARNATION CO. U~ u Colo.App. as1 -~E 127 17. Ner Trial ad 152 Defendant's supplement to iu new trial motion, filed three days before the trial mart heard argument on the initial new trial motion, was a nullity since defendant did not file the supplemental motion within the time allowed for the motion for a new trial and since defendant did not seek an extension of time to file amendmenu to iu motion either within the period previously granted or at any time prior u the hearing on the motion. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59(b, f). lg. Interest X47(1) ]n respect to statute providing that interest on "personal" injury damage awards may be recovered from the date the complaint u filed, an injury is personal when it impairs the well-being or the men• tal or physical health of the victim, but an injury is not personal when inflicted on property. C.RS. '73, 13-21-101. 19. Interest X47(1) Interest on an award of annoyance and discomfort is recoverable from the date of filing the complaint. C.RS. "13, 13-21-101. Carrigan 6. Bragg, P. C., Douglas E. Bragg, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees. Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Robert H. Har- ry, LRichard Freese, Denver, for defend- anu-appellanu. KELLY, Judge. The Carnation Company appeals from an advene judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Harry and Sondra Miller, for damages for trespass and nui• lance arising out of the operation of the Brighton Egg Company, a poultry ranch owned by Carnation. The jury returned a special verdict awarding $101,748 in com- pensatory damages, which the trial mart later remitted to 58,5,748. The jury also awarded 5300,000 in exemplary damages. Carnation does not contest iu liability on the claim, but asserts that both verdicu are excessive and that both are the result of passion and prejudice of the jun'. The Millen cross-appeal, claiming pre-judgment Colo. 129 interest on a portion of the award. We affirm the judgment against Carnation and revere as to the denial of interest on the judgment. In June 1966, the Millers purchased and moved into a home on property abutting Carnation's egg ranch. Shortly- thereafter, the plaintiffs were besieged and they prop- erty was invaded by inordinate numbers of flies and rodenu. The Millers' evidence demonstrated that Carnation's failure to re- move chicken manure frequently and regu- larly from beneath iu chicken houses pro- vided these peso with ideal conditions for breeding. The flies existed in such num• hers that the plaintiffs were depraved of the use and enjoyment of their property, and their influx damaged the Miller home and required increased maintenance. Persistent complainu to the egg ranch management proved unavailing. Although Carnation began a program of extensive insecticide spraying of both iu ranch and the Miller property, the spraying proved ineffective and no less an inconvenience than the flies. It was uncontroverted that the most effective method of abatement was regular and frequent removal of the manure. Nevertheless, Carnation did not intensify iu cleaning efforts, and the Mil- lers were continually harassed by flies and rodenu. The rave hag been twice tried. At the fiat trial, Carnation prevailed on iu motion to dismiss after presentation of the plain- tiffs' evidence. On appeal, this court re- versed, finding that the Millen had estab- lished prima facie caves of nuisance and trespass and that there was evidence from which the jury might conclude that Carna- tion's conduct warranted an award of ex- emplary damages. Miller v. Carnation Ca., 33 Colo.App. 62. 516 P?d 661 (1973). At the conclusion o[ the second trial, the jury returned the verdicu above noted, and the plaintiffs agreed to a remittitur of 516,000 as ordered by the court. Regarding the compensatory damages, Carnation contends that submission of the ~O C~