Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hesse v. McClintic

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 14, 2008No. 06SC624Published

1DissentJustice Rice

I would affirm the court of appeals’ ruling in this case that there was no duty on McClintic to pull over to the right shoulder when she slowed for bighorn sheep on the highway. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

I. Defining the Legal Duty

In this ease, the majority correctly recognizes that this court must begin its comparative negligence analysis by asking whether McClintic owed a duty to Hesse. Maj. op. at 762. However, I believe that the majority ignores precedent by assuming without explanation that if McClintic owed any duty to Hesse, that duty is an ordinary…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Destefano v. GrabrianSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  2. Taco Bell, Inc. v. LannonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
  3. Fletcher v. Baltimore & Potomac RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  4. Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1987
  5. Keller v. Koca ex rel. AlparSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005

5 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