§

Perreira v. State

768 P.2d 1198 (Colo. 1989)
Perreira v. State

81 Citing cases

  1. Leonard v. State

    491 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1992)   Cited 41 times
    In Leonard v. State, 491 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1992), which specifically rejected the holding of Perreira, the court applied § 319 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, but held that it created a duty to protect only “reasonably foreseeable victims” and not members of the public generally.

    The district court ruled that the special relationship between Parrish and his state psychiatrist could give rise to a duty towards Leonard, but that summary judgment was precluded because the extent of that duty could not be determined without "a careful weighing of various factors in the evidentiary context of the case at hand." (Citing Perreira v. Colorado, 768 P.2d 1198, 1214 (Colo. 1989)). Likewise the court ruled that any breach of the state's duty of care toward Parrish posed factual issues which could not be summarily adjudicated.

  2. Morgan v. Fam. Counseling Ctr.

    77 Ohio St. 3d 284 (Ohio 1997)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a psychotherapist must protect against or control a patient's violent propensities and that a “professional-judgment standard” applied

    See Littleton, supra, 39 Ohio St. 3 d at 93-94, 97-98, 529 N.E.2d at 456-457, 459. See, also, Perreira v. State (Colo. 1989), 768 P.2d 1198, 1214-1215. A

  3. Castaldo v. Stone

    192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2001)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that an officer engages in willful and wanton conduct when he purposefully pursues a course of action or inaction which the officer considered would probably result in harm to the plaintiff

    In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted that while foreseeability was an important factor, "foreseeability by itself does not establish the existence of a legal duty." Id. at 54 citing Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198 (Colo. 1989). i. Foreseeability of Harm

  4. Greenberg v. Perkins

    845 P.2d 530 (Colo. 1993)   Cited 87 times
    Holding an IME "itself may be said to create a relationship between the parties and impose upon the physician a duty to exercise a level of care that is consistent with his professional training and expertise"

    To establish a prima facie case for negligence, a plaintiff must show a legal duty of care on the defendant's part, breach of that duty, injury to the plaintiff, and causation, i.e., that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury. Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 465 (Colo. 1989); Perreira v. State of Colorado, 768 P.2d 1198, 1208 (Colo. 1989). A negligence action will fail therefore if it is based on circumstances for which the law imposes no duty of care upon the defendant for the plaintiff's benefit.

  5. Observatory Corp. v. Daly

    780 P.2d 462 (Colo. 1989)   Cited 31 times
    Rejecting imposition of a duty on tavern owners to all persons on its premises because '[t]o impose such a duty would be tantamount to requiring a tavern employee to divine future violence on the part of a tavern patron notwithstanding the absence of any objective evidence indicating that the patron constituted an unreasonable risk to the safety of others," thereby making the tavern owner a "virtual insurer of the safety of all persons"

    To recover on a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty on the part of the defendant, breach of duty by the defendant, causation, and damages. E.g., Perreira v. State of Colorado, 768 P.2d 1198, 1208 (Colo. 1989); Leake v. Cain, 720 P.2d 152, 155 (Colo. 1986). The existence and scope of a legal duty is a question of law for the court.

  6. Texas Home Mgmt. v. Peavy

    89 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2002)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that "[i]f the party in charge of the dangerous person knew or reasonably should have known of the dangers that person posed, then persons foreseeably exposed to such danger may be owed a duty of care"

    See Grimm v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons Paroles, 564 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1977); Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198 (Colo. 1989); Nova Univ., Inc. v. Wagner, 491 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1986); Bradley Cntr., Inc. v. Wessner, 296 S.E.2d 693 (Ga. 1982); Sterling v. Bloom, 723 P.2d 755 (Idaho 1986); Bailor v. Salvation Army, 51 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 1995) (Indiana law); C.J.W. v. State, 853 P.2d 4 (Kan. 1993); Cansler v. State, 675 P.2d 57 (Kan. 1984); Davis v. Puryear, 673 So.2d 1298 (La.App. 1996); Lamb v. Hopkins, 492 A.2d 1297 (Md. 1985); Rum River Lumber Co. v. State, 282 N.W.2d 882 (Minn. 1979); Latray v. City of Havre, 999 P.2d 1010 (Mont.

  7. Ryder v. Mitchell

    54 P.3d 885 (Colo. 2002)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that a child therapist did not owe a duty of care to her patients' parents

    To establish a prima facie case for negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury, and the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury. Greenberg v. Perkins, 845 P.2d 530, 533 (Colo. 1993). If a negligence action is based on facts that do not impose a duty of care upon a defendant for a plaintiff's benefit, the claim will fail. Id.; Perreira v. Colorado, 768 P.2d 1198, 1208 (Colo. 1989). Whether a specific defendant owes a specific plaintiff a legal duty and the scope of any such duty are questions of law properly determined by a court.

  8. Cruz v. Marquez

    Civil Action 21-cv-01276-RM-NRN (D. Colo. Jul. 12, 2022)

    Ryder, 54 P.3d at 889 (citing Greenberg, 845 P.2d at 533, and Perreira v. Colorado, 768 P.2d 1198, 1208 (Colo. 1989)). Whether a defendant in a particular negligence action owes a legal duty to the plaintiff is not a question of fact but is a question of law to be determined by the court.

  9. Ireland v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department

    193 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Colo. 2002)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that the individual gunmen were the moving force behind the plaintiff's injuries and that the "[p]laintiff's allegations that his injuries could have been avoided if there were different policies in place or adequate training do not state a viable claim"

    1980). See Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198, 1208 (Colo. 1989). If the law imposes no duty of care under the circumstances, a negligence claim cannot be sustained even though injury may have occurred.

  10. Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.

    188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Colo. 2002)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sanders, I dismissed a Complaint alleging that the defendants knew that their movies and video game products created an unreasonable risk of the harm that occurred in the Columbine tragedy.

    Metropolitan Gas Repair Serv., Inc. v. Kulik, 621 P.2d 313, 317 (Colo. 1980). See Perreira v. Colorado, 768 P.2d 1198, 1208 (Colo. 1989). If the law imposes no duty of care under the circumstances, a negligence claim cannot be sustained even though injury may have occurred.