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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.