Legal Opinion · Dissent

Vigil v. Franklin

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 30, 2004No. 03SC479Published

1DissentJustice Kourlis

We granted certiorari to consider whether the common law "open and obvious" doctrine survived the enactment of Colorado's premises liability statute, section 13-21-115, C.R.S. (2004), and whether the doctrine supported the grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff, Vigil. The majority now holds that no common law landowner principles survive the enactment of the premises liability statute, and hence that the common law defense of "open and obvious danger" is no longer applicable.

Because I read the express purpose of the premises liability statute as the protection of private property…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. O'Sullivan v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  2. Mile High Fence Co. v. RadovichSupreme Court of Colorado · 1971
  3. Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational IndustriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Smith v. City & County of Denver ex rel. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  5. Pierson v. Black Canyon Aggregates, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2002

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API