highest standard (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

highest standard in Colorado

6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Imperial Distribution Services, Inc. v. Forrestgreen
colo · 1987 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2013–2015
2 sentences

2015"It is only where all minds concur that the defendant is engaged in an activity that poses a high risk of injury to others that the court, as a matter of law, may instruct the jury to hold the defendant to the highest standard of care." Id.

2013See Imperial Distribution, 741 P.2d at 1255 .

12
Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoosegreen
colo · 1984 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1987–2013
2 sentences

2013Imperial Distribution, 74l P.2d at 1255 (citing Blueflame Gas, 679 P.2d 579 (propane gas); Federal Ins.

1987See Blueflame Gas, 679 P.2d at 587-89 .

12
Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc.green
colo · 1998 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See Bayer, 960 P.2d at 78-80 (explaining that, as defined by the legislature, the standard of conduct applicable to ski lift operators in a statutory claim of negligence per se is ordinary and reasonable care consistent with the rules and regulations of the SSA and PTSA and deciding that, regardless of the SSA and PTSA, for common law claims of negligence beyond the statutory duties with which a ski operator is required by law to comply, the standard remains as the highest standard of care).

11
Springer v. City & County of Denvergreen
colo · 2000 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004As pertinent here, an invitee "may recover for damages caused by the landowner's unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he [or she] actually knew or should have known." Section 13-21-115(8)(c)(), C.R.S.2002; see *1087 also Springer v. City & County of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 804 (Colo.2000)(deseribing the elements of landowner liability to invitees in terms of (1) breach of a duty to use reasonable care to protect against a danger on the property, and (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the danger).

11
People v. Stewartgreen
colo · 1995 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004"The highest standard of care is owed the 'invitee,' a lesser is owed the 'licensee, and a yet lesser is owed the trespasser." Maes v. Lakeview Associates, Ltd., 892 P.2d 875, 377 (Colo.App.1994), aff'd, 907 P.2d 580 (Colo.1995).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes green
colo · 1995
1 sentence

2004"The highest standard of care is owed the 'invitee,' a lesser is owed the 'licensee, and a yet lesser is owed the trespasser." Maes v. Lakeview Associates, Ltd., 892 P.2d 875, 377 (Colo.App.1994), aff'd, 907 P.2d 580 (Colo.1995).

12004–2004
People v. Brown green
colo · 1986
2 sentences

1991Brown, 726 P.2d at 641 .

1991Brown, 726 P.2d at 641 .

11991–1991

Where else courts name it

IL 44 (1895–2026) PA 44 (1967–2026) OH 43 (1976–2026) CA 30 (1971–2024) MN 18 (1939–2026) MO 18 (1914–2023) LA 17 (1983–2025) WA 15 (1972–2026) NJ 13 (1973–2024) IA 11 (1990–2017) NY 11 (1901–2000) CT 9 (1995–2019) TX 9 (1924–2016) GA 9 (1907–2013) MD 8 (1986–2022) IN 8 (1978–2025) FL 7 (1988–2022) MA 7 (1978–2026) MT 6 (1927–2004) MS 6 (1974–2023) DE 6 (2017–2025) OR 6 (1980–2023) CO 6 (1987–2021) KS 5 (2013–2026) TN 4 (1951–2004) KY 4 (1939–2025) AK 4 (1998–2024) MI 3 (2001–2022) WV 3 (1986–2020) DC 3 (1979–2000) WY 3 (1987–2007) NM 3 (2012–2018) ME 3 (1981–2003) NC 3 (2001–2026) SC 2 (1922–2013) VA 2 (2018–2025) HI 2 (1999–2005) UT 2 (1998–2011) WI 2 (1909–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check