Baird v. Power Rental Equipment, Inc.

Decision Date11 February 1975
Docket NumberNo. 73--321,73--321
Citation35 Colo.App. 299,533 P.2d 941
PartiesTerry J. BAIRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POWER RENTAL EQUIPMENT, INC., a Colorado Corporation, and Jacmun, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. . I
CourtColorado Court of Appeals
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
8 cases
  • 4Front Engineered Solutions, Inc. v. Rosales
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • December 23, 2016
    ...it specifically to forklifts. See Kitchens v. Dirtworks, Inc., 50 So.3d 388, 389 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) ; Baird v. Power Rental Equip., Inc., 35 Colo.App. 299, 533 P.2d 941, 945 (1975), aff'd, 191 Colo. 319, 552 P.2d 494 (1976).6 See also Schneider v. Esperanza Transmission Co., 744 S.W.2d 5......
  • Metropolitan Gas Repair Service, Inc. v. Kulik
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1980
    ...Lembke Plumbing and Heating v. Hayutin, supra; Roessler v. O'Brien, 119 Colo. 222, 201 P.2d 901 (1949); Baird v. Power Rental Equipment, Inc., 35 Colo.App. 299, 533 P.2d 941 (1975), aff'd, 191 Colo. 319, 552 P.2d 494 (1976). The court determines, as a matter of law, the existence and scope ......
  • Kulik v. Public Service Co. of Colorado
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 16, 1979
    ...a particular defendant owes a duty to a particular plaintiff is a question of law. Roessler, supra; Baird v. Power Rental Equipment, Inc., 35 Colo.App. 299, 533 P.2d 941 (1975). However, once the existence of a duty is established, the particular scope of that duty is a question for the tri......
  • Greene v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 1982
    ...in finding that he was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care for plastic surgeons. See Baird v. Power Rental Equipment, Inc., 35 Colo.App. 299, 533 P.2d 941 (1975), aff'd, 191 Colo. 319, 552 P.2d 494 Our ruling here should not be construed to mean that a general practitioner i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT