6465 S. Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Ste. 650
Englewood, Colorado 80111
Mr. Nichols was admitted to the Colorado State Bar in 2014. He received his Bachelor of Arts in psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2011. In 2014, Mr. Nichols graduated cum laude from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. His Juris Doctor was accompanied with an emphasis in litigation.
Prior to law school, Mr. Nichols worked as an agent for a large Midwestern property and casualty insurance company. During law school, Mr. Nichols served as a staff member on the UMKC Law Review. While in law school Mr. Nichols served as an intern for the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office, and as a law clerk for a prominent Kansas City law firm with a practice focused on defending healthcare providers in malpractice lawsuits and administrative proceedings. Prior to joining Levy•Wheeler•Waters, P.C., Mr. Nichols served as an intern for the Honorable Bonnie McLean in Colorado’s Eighteenth Judicial District.
Sample of Success
King v. Concord Rig Services, LLC, Xtreme Drilling and Coil Service, Inc., Big D’s Pumping, Inc., Stax Trucking, LLC and Joseph Shed, 2016CV30898, Weld County District Court. Plaintiff alleged that a tractor-trailer was transporting an oversized piece of oilfield drilling equipment when a hinged arm on the equipment broke free. She alleged that the arm of the equipment swung into oncoming traffic and collided with the hood, windshield and A-pillar area of her vehicle. Plaintiff alleged that the arm broke through Plaintiff’s windshield across the interior of the vehicle. Plaintiff alleged injuries and damages including economic damages, non-economic damages, physical impairment and disfigurement as a result of the accident. The Court agreed with Big D’s position that plaintiff failed to assert a claim against Big D’s upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the action against Big D’s. Thereafter, the Court entered judgment against the plaintiff for attorney fees.
Gonzales v. Postel, Civil Action 16CV30120, Denver District Court.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for alleged injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff claimed that she was injured when she was rear-ended by someone driving Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant was attempting to sell his vehicle and had allowed an individual to take the vehicle on a test drive, during which the accident happened. Defendant did not ride in the vehicle during the test drive. Plaintiff asserted a claim of vicarious liability via joint venture in the operation of a motor vehicle against Defendant claiming that Defendant should be held responsible for the actions of the driver of his vehicle because they were engaged in a joint venture at the time of the accident – the sale and purchase of Defendant’s vehicle. In order to impose joint venture vicarious liability in the operation of a motor vehicle under Colorado law it must be proven that the owner and driver were 1) united in pursuit of a common purpose, and 2) both the driver and owner had the right to control the operation of the vehicle. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that both of these elements had been established and were undisputed. Defendant responded by filing a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that because Defendant was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident he was unable to exercise control over the operation of the vehicle, and thus no joint venture could have existed. The Court agreed with Defendant and entered judgment in his favor, noting that “a non-passenger cannot have the necessary right to control the operation of a vehicle so as to fulfill the elements of a joint venture.”
Nunez-Hurtado v. Rupe, Civil Action 15CV31629, Arapahoe District Court. After a two and a half day jury trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant, finding that Defendant was not negligent in this rear-end motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff moved the Court to override the jury’s verdict and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of liability and order a new trial solely on the issue of damages. Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to rebut the rear-end presumption of negligence as there was allegedly no evidence that Plaintiff’s sudden stop was unwarranted, and that Defendant should not have been permitted to argue at trial that a third vehicle was responsible for the accident because Defendant did not designate a non-party at fault. Defendant argued in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion that regardless of the actions of any other party, the evidence at trial showed that Defendant simply was not negligent. The Court agreed with Defendant, finding that Defendant presented substantial evidence at trial that her conduct at the time of the motor vehicle accident was reasonable and not negligent.