Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Gast v. City of Fountain
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided April 4, 1994No. 91CA1673Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Judge ROTHENBERG
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the City of Fountain had no duty to elevate the transmission lines. However, because I also conclude that plaintiff failed to prove the breach of any duty owed to him and also failed to establish that any alleged negligence by the City of Fountain proximately caused his accident, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which remands the cause for a new trial.
In Connes v. Molalla Transport System, Inc., 831 P.2d 1316, 1320 (Colo.1992), our…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Taco Bell, Inc. v. LannonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- Connes v. Molalla Transport System, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Wilson v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1983
- Cynthia Denise Ferguson Mosby v. Southwestern Electric Power CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- First Trust & Savings Bank v. Commonwealth Edison Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.