Vick v. Zumwalt
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Knauss
In the trial court plaintiff in error M. M. Vick and his son, David Vick, were defendants, and defendants in error were plaintiffs. The essential facts are that M. M. Vick of Loveland, Colorado on February 16, 1952 was the owner of a Mercury automobile; that on said date his son, David, then almost fifteen years of age, while his parents were away from their home and in Fort Collins, Colorado, took the Mercury automobile from his father’s garage and with the minor plaintiffs, Carol Zumwalt and Sam Rowley, as his guests, drove into the country. The occupants of the Vick car discovered that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Phillips v. Denver City Tramway Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1912
- Pettingell v. MoedeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1954
- Boyd v. CloseSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
- Hutchins v. HaffnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917
- Boltz v. BonnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
- Coffman v. GodsoeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
- Hasegawa v. DayColorado Court of Appeals · 1983
- Citywide Banks v. ArmijoColorado Court of Appeals · 2011
- Reimer v. WalkerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1969
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.