In the recent case of J.B. v. MKBS, LLC, 2026 CO 50 (Colo. 2026), the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a default judgment should be vacated when a later jury verdict is inconsistent. In that case, the plaintiff sued a taxi driver and the company he worked for, alleging that the driver sexually assaulted his ward, E.B., a cognitively impaired and blind adult who uses a wheelchair. The driver failed to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint and the court entered judgment against the driver. Because default judgment was entered against him, the driver was deemed to have admitted the plaintiff’s allegation that he sexually assaulted E.B.
The taxi company answered the complaint, and the case proceeded to trial against the taxi company only. Over the plaintiff’s objection, the court permitted the taxi company to call the driver as a witness. The driver testified that he did not sexually assault E.B.
The jury returned a special verdict finding that the driver did not sexually assault E.B. The court granted the driver’s pro se motion to set aside the default judgment against him. After obtaining counsel, the driver moved for entry of judgment in his favor, which the court granted.
Despite the fact that the driver was deemed to have admitted allegations against him, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the decision to allow the driver to testify. The Court explained that the driver was one of only two people present at the time of the alleged sexual assault and that the taxi company would be prejudiced if it were not allowed to call the driver as a witness.
The Court also affirmed the decision to set aside the default judgment against the driver and the decision to enter judgment in the driver’s favor. In doing so, the Court stated that “when a jury verdict conflicts with the allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint, a default judgment based on those allegations should be vacated.” J.B. v. MKBS, 2026 CO 50, ¶ 40 The Court cited a decision of the United States Supreme Court that reasoned “that it would be ‘unseemly and absurd, as well as unauthorized by law’ to allow a default judgment to create an incongruity with a judgment on the merits.” Id. (quoting Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872)). The rule in J.B. v. MKBS resembles the doctrine of issue preclusion in that it allows a merits adjudication of one claim to affect a separate claim.
