14 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gordon v. Bensongreen2 sentences2004It "abrogated the traditional contributory negligence doctrine and in its place substituted a statutory scheme whereby a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover so long as his or her negligence was less than that of the defendant." Gordon v. Benson, 925 P.2d 775, 777 (Colo.1996); see Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250 (Colo.1989). 2004It “abrogated the traditional contributory negligence doctrine and in its place substituted a statutory scheme whereby a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover so long as his or her negligence was less than that of the defendant.” Gordon v. Benson, 925 P.2d 775, 777 (Colo.1996); see Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250 (Colo.1989). | 3 | 3 |
Lyons v. Nasbygreen2 sentences2004It "abrogated the traditional contributory negligence doctrine and in its place substituted a statutory scheme whereby a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover so long as his or her negligence was less than that of the defendant." Gordon v. Benson, 925 P.2d 775, 777 (Colo.1996); see Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250 (Colo.1989). 2004It “abrogated the traditional contributory negligence doctrine and in its place substituted a statutory scheme whereby a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover so long as his or her negligence was less than that of the defendant.” Gordon v. Benson, 925 P.2d 775, 777 (Colo.1996); see Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250 (Colo.1989). | 3 | 3 |
Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Giffordgreen1 sentence2016See Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford, 660 P.2d 883, 884 (Colo. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Healy v. Hewittgreen2 sentences1992See Healy v. Hewitt, 101 Colo. 92 , 71 P.2d 63 (1937); Denver & R.G.R.R. 1992See Healy v. Hewitt, 101 Colo. 92 , 71 P.2d 63 (1937); Denver & R.G.R.R. | 1 | 1 |
Paiva v. Pfeiffergreen2 sentences1991See also Paiva v. Pfeiffer, 229 N.J.Super. 276 , 551 A.2d 201, 204-05 (App.Div.1988) (instruction in error, apparently as applied, because argumentative and serving to emphasize unduly one aspect of the proofs). [2] The existence of a separate instruction on sudden emergency results from the sudden emergency doctrine's origin as an escape from the contributory negligence bar. 1991See also Paiva v. Pfeiffer, 229 N.J.Super. 276 , 551 A.2d 201, 204-05 (App.Div.1988) (instruction in error, apparently as applied, because argumentative and serving to emphasize unduly one aspect of the proofs). [2] The existence of a separate instruction on sudden emergency results from the sudden emergency doctrine's origin as an escape from the contributory negligence bar. | 1 | 1 |
Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowlgreen2 sentences1989See Thomas v. Pete’s Satire, Inc., 717 P.2d 509, 510 (Colo.App.1985); see also Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowl, 20 Cal.3d 389, 402 , 572 P.2d 1155, 1160 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 19 (1978). 1989See Thomas v. Pete’s Satire, Inc., 717 P.2d 509, 510 (Colo.App.1985); see also Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowl, 20 Cal.3d 389, 402 , 572 P.2d 1155, 1160 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 19 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Pete's Satire, Inc.green1 sentence1989See Thomas v. Pete’s Satire, Inc., 717 P.2d 509, 510 (Colo.App.1985); see also Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowl, 20 Cal.3d 389, 402 , 572 P.2d 1155, 1160 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 19 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Langdon
green
2 sentences1996Safeway Stores, 187 Colo, at 429, 532 P.2d at 339 . 6 Similarly, in Powell , the plaintiff was a passenger on a legally parked motorcycle. 1996Safeway Stores, 187 Colo. at 429 , 532 P.2d at 339 . [6] *780 Similarly, in Powell , the plaintiff was a passenger on a legally parked motorcycle. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Matt Skorey Packard Co. v. Canino
green
2 sentences1982Matt Skorey Packard Co. v. Canino, 142 Colo. 411 , 350 P.2d 1069 (1960). 1982Matt Skorey Packard Co. v. Canino, 142 Colo. 411 , 350 P.2d 1069 (1960). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek
green
1 sentence1975In First National Bank v. Rostek, Colo., 514 P.2d 314 , the Colorado Supreme Court abandoned the doctrine of lex locus delicti as determinative in the application of various statutes and rules in multistate tort controversies, and took an important step forward by adopting the "significant contacts" choice of law rule. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Moore v. Fischer
green
2 sentences1973Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972). 1973Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo. App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Carr v. Boyd
green
2 sentences1956In this connection we quote from the brief of counsel as follows: “Plaintiffs’ counsel states without any hestitation and with a clear recollection of the procedure, that both of the instructions covered in Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial [No. 4 and No. 17] were objected to when offered by the Defendant, and that Court’s Instruction No. 10 is a stock instruction, to which there was no objection.” Nevertheless it is frankly admitted that counsel might, have erred in identifying the instruction to which objection was made, and in the reply brief counsel states, inter alia: “We again acknowled 1956In this connection we quote from the brief of counsel as follows: “Plaintiffs’ counsel states without any hestitation and with a clear recollection of the procedure, that both of the instructions covered in Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial [No. 4 and No. 17] were objected to when offered by the Defendant, and that Court’s Instruction No. 10 is a stock instruction, to which there was no objection.” Nevertheless it is frankly admitted that counsel might, have erred in identifying the instruction to which objection was made, and in the reply brief counsel states, inter alia: “We again acknowled | 1 | 1956–1956 |
McCarthy v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Co.
neutral
2 sentences1917Law, 190, 33 Atl. 390 ; McCarthy v. Lehigh Co., 48 Minn. 533 , 51 N. W. 480 . (2) The doctrine of contributory negligence as a defense applies, and bars a recovery where the negligence of the employer consists merely in the breach of some ordinance or statutory duty, and the contributory negligence of the employe is the proximate cause of the injury. 1917Law, 190, 33 Atl. 390 ; McCarthy v. Lehigh Co., 48 Minn. 533 , 51 N. W. 480 . (2) The doctrine of contributory negligence as a defense applies, and bars a recovery where the negligence of the employer consists merely in the breach of some ordinance or statutory duty, and the contributory negligence of the employe is the proximate cause of the injury. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
People v. Ayala
neutral
1 sentence1917Victor Coal Co. v. Muir, 20 Colo. 320 , 38 Pac. 378 , 26 L. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Smith v. Van Sciver
neutral
1 sentence1917Law, 190, 33 Atl. 390 ; McCarthy v. Lehigh Co., 48 Minn. 533 , 51 N. W. 480 . (2) The doctrine of contributory negligence as a defense applies, and bars a recovery where the negligence of the employer consists merely in the breach of some ordinance or statutory duty, and the contributory negligence of the employe is the proximate cause of the injury. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Victor Coal Co. v. Muir
neutral
1 sentence1917Victor Coal Co. v. Muir, 20 Colo. 320 , 38 Pac. 378 , 26 L. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Rimmer v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1912It is only in the clearest cases that the court should 'usurp the functions of the jury, in determining questions of negligence or contributory negligence.” In Rimmer v. Wilson, 42 Colo. 180 , this court, at page 182, said: “Where the circumstances are such that men of ordinary intelligence may honestly differ as to the question of negligence, it must be left to the jury, and it is always a question to be determined by that body when the measuré of' duty is ordinary and reasonable care.” Whether the rule as thus announced has been applied by this court need not be inquired into, for certain it | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.