respondeat superior doctrine in Colorado

1994Relying on the indemnification concept recognized in Hamm v. Thompson, 148 Colo. 298 , 353 P.2d 73 (1960) (employer, liable to third party under doctrine of respondeat superior, is entitled to indemnification from negligent employee), Unigard, as Western’s subrogee, sought to obtain indemnification from Mission, as McKinley’s insurer, for any amounts that Western had been required to pay to the injured employee as a result of McKinley’s negligence.

1968It cites Hamm v. Thompson, 143 Colo. 298 , 353 P.2d 73 ; Parrish v. De Remer, 117 Colo. 256 , 187 P.2d 597 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 ; and Spillane v. Wright, 127 Colo. 580 , 259 P.2d 1078 .

1994See Hamm v. Thompson, supra; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 (1934).

1994See Hamm v. Thompson, supra; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 (1934).

2016See Springer , 13 P.3d 794 ; Reid I ; Kidwell v. K-Mart Corp. , 942 P.2d 1280 (Colo. App. 1997); Jules v. Embassy Props., Inc. , 905 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1995). ¶23 While the nondelegable duty imposed on a landowner by the PLA may be viewed as a form of vicarious liability, it is not the equivalent of liability under a doctrine of respondeat superior.

2016See Springer , 13 P.3d 794 ; Reid I ; Kidwell v. K-Mart Corp. , 942 P.2d 1280 (Colo. App. 1997); Jules v. Embassy Props., Inc. , 905 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1995). ¶23 While the nondelegable duty imposed on a landowner by the PLA may be viewed as a form of vicarious liability, it is not the equivalent of liability under a doctrine of respondeat superior.

2016See Springer , 13 P.3d 794 ; Reid I ; Kidwell v. K-Mart Corp. , 942 P.2d 1280 (Colo. App. 1997); Jules v. Embassy Props., Inc. , 905 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1995). ¶23 While the nondelegable duty imposed on a landowner by the PLA may be viewed as a form of vicarious liability, it is not the equivalent of liability under a doctrine of respondeat superior.

2016See Springer , 13 P.3d 794 ; Reid I ; Kidwell v. K-Mart Corp. , 942 P.2d 1280 (Colo. App. 1997); Jules v. Embassy Props., Inc. , 905 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1995). ¶23 While the nondelegable duty imposed on a landowner by the PLA may be viewed as a form of vicarious liability, it is not the equivalent of liability under a doctrine of respondeat superior.

1971Schwalb v. Connely, 116 Colo. 195 , 179 P.2d 667 (1947)." The rule of Liber v. Flor, supra , in substance stands for the proposition that where a public official is charged with a duty and responsibility to the public, or any member of the public, he should not escape liability for damages caused by his negligence in failing to perform his duty and fulfill his responsibility.

1971Schwalb v. Connely, 116 Colo. 195 , 179 P.2d 667 (1947).” The rule of Liber v. Flor, supra, in substance stands for the proposition that where a public official is charged with a duty and responsibility to the public, or any member of the public, he should not escape liability for damages caused by his negligence in failing to perform his duty and fulfill his responsibility.

1971Schwalb v. Connely, 116 Colo. 195 , 179 P.2d 667 (1947)." The rule of Liber v. Flor, supra , in substance stands for the proposition that where a public official is charged with a duty and responsibility to the public, or any member of the public, he should not escape liability for damages caused by his negligence in failing to perform his duty and fulfill his responsibility.

1971Schwalb v. Connely, 116 Colo. 195 , 179 P.2d 667 (1947).” The rule of Liber v. Flor, supra, in substance stands for the proposition that where a public official is charged with a duty and responsibility to the public, or any member of the public, he should not escape liability for damages caused by his negligence in failing to perform his duty and fulfill his responsibility.

1968It cites Hamm v. Thompson, 143 Colo. 298 , 353 P.2d 73 ; Parrish v. De Remer, 117 Colo. 256 , 187 P.2d 597 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 ; and Spillane v. Wright, 127 Colo. 580 , 259 P.2d 1078 .

1968It cites Hamm v. Thompson, 143 Colo. 298 , 353 P.2d 73 ; Parrish v. De Remer, 117 Colo. 256 , 187 P.2d 597 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 ; and Spillane v. Wright, 127 Colo. 580 , 259 P.2d 1078 .

1968It cites Hamm v. Thompson, 143 Colo. 298 , 353 P.2d 73 ; Parrish v. De Remer, 117 Colo. 256 , 187 P.2d 597 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 ; and Spillane v. Wright, 127 Colo. 580 , 259 P.2d 1078 .

1968It cites Hamm v. Thompson, 143 Colo. 298 , 353 P.2d 73 ; Parrish v. De Remer, 117 Colo. 256 , 187 P.2d 597 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 ; and Spillane v. Wright, 127 Colo. 580 , 259 P.2d 1078 .

1960This [is] a rudimentary survival of the maxim, ‘The King can do no wrong.’ ” Evans v. Berry, 262 N.Y. 61 , 186 N.E. 203 , 89 A.L.R. 387 .

1960This [is] a rudimentary survival of the maxim, ‘The King can do no wrong.’ ” Evans v. Berry, 262 N.Y. 61 , 186 N.E. 203 , 89 A.L.R. 387 .

2021Id. at ¶ 31 n.11, 390 P.3d at 845 n.11 (first emphasis added ) . ¶26 In this case , the trial court quoted footnote 11 and correctly characterized it as "draw [ing] a 'bright line' under the factual and procedural circumstances through which these imputed or 'direct' liability claims against an employer are barred." Indeed, the trial court explained that " [i] f footnote 11 controls, the [Colorado] Supreme Court 's bar on direct 'imputed' claims does not apply if a respondeat superior claim is not pleaded." Nevertheless, the trial court granted DCBW's motion for partial judgment on the pleadin

2021Id. at ¶ 31 n.11, 390 P.3d at 845 n.11 (first emphasis added ) . ¶26 In this case , the trial court quoted footnote 11 and correctly characterized it as "draw [ing] a 'bright line' under the factual and procedural circumstances through which these imputed or 'direct' liability claims against an employer are barred." Indeed, the trial court explained that " [i] f footnote 11 controls, the [Colorado] Supreme Court 's bar on direct 'imputed' claims does not apply if a respondeat superior claim is not pleaded." Nevertheless, the trial court granted DCBW's motion for partial judgment on the pleadin

2018Instead, the parties in Ochoa focused on the application of McCall v. Roper, 32 Colo. App. 352 , 511 P.2d 541 (1973), section 13-50-103, C.R.S. 2017 (liability of remaining debtor statute), and the effect of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to amend his answer to plead the defense of setoff.

2018Instead, the parties in Ochoa focused on the application of McCall v. Roper, 32 Colo. App. 352 , 511 P.2d 541 (1973), section 13-50-103, C.R.S. 2017 (liability of remaining debtor statute), and the effect of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to amend his answer to plead the defense of setoff.

2018By its terms, it has no application when, as here, one party (Coldwell) is vicariously liable solely under the doctrine of respondeat superior and not because the party itself violated any legal duty.6 “A party whose liability is based on respondeat superior is not a joint tortfeasor . . . .” Ochoa, 212 P.3d at 971 ; see Arnold v. Colo. State Hosp., 910 P.2d 104, 107 (Colo. App. 1995).

2018See Villarini-Garcia v. Hosp. del Maestro, 112 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1997). ¶ 26 The Michigan Supreme Court decided a case remarkably similar to the present case: Kaiser v. Allen, 746 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2008).

2013Id. at 221-22 .

2005Pediatric Neurosurgery, P.C. v. Russell, supra; Perkins v. Reg’l Transp.

2005Dist., supra. Jones argues that Hagan was a mere volunteer and therefore, he cannot be held responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2005Health Plan, 849 P.2d 811, 816 (Colo.App.1992) (because a health maintenance organization is statutorily precluded from practicing medicine, it cannot direct the actions of the independent physicians with whom it contracts and thus cannot be held responsible for their actions under respondeat superior); Rodriquez v. City & County of Denver, 702 P.2d 1349 (Colo.App.1984) (because hospital had no authority to control professional medical decisions made by resident physicians, it could not be held liable for their actions under doctrine of respondeat superior). 2.

1998See also Nieto v. State, 952 P.2d 834 (Colo.App.1997) (cert. granted March 23, 1998) (dismissal of public employee based on affirmative defense unrelated to governmental immunity does not bar suit based on respondeat superior against the public entity); Cobbin v. City & County of Denver, 735 P.2d 214 (Colo.App.1987) (dismissal of agent did not bar action against principal on basis of respondeat superior).