Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-929-605-4013

Burchinal v. Gregory

Document Cited authorities 8 Cited in 18 Precedent Map Related
Decision Date09 November 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-828,77-828
Citation41 Colo.App. 490,586 P.2d 1012
PartiesJohn C. BURCHINAL, by his guardian, James R. Burchinal, and James R. Burchinal, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Karl E. GREGORY and Norma L. Gregory, 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
11 cases
  • Vigil v. Franklin
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • November 30, 2004
    ...river "because the potential for danger was readily apparent." Id. at 1127-28 (referring to Burchinal v. Gregory, 41 Colo.App. 490, 492, 586 P.2d 1012, 1013-14 (1978)).3 To reach this conclusion, we borrowed principles from both strict liability and proximate cause. See Bookout v. Victor Co......
  • Sollami v. Eaton
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2002
    ...test in finding that the landowners could reasonably expect that the plaintiff would realize the danger. Burchinal v. Gregory, 41 Colo.App. 490, 586 P.2d 1012 (1978), involved a plaintiff who was injured while attempting a back flip on a recreational trampoline. The plaintiff had experience......
  • Rowan v. Vail Holdings, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • December 24, 1998
    ...296, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696 (1992); Smith v. City and County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125 (Colo.1986) and Burchinal v. Gregory, 41 Colo.App. 490, 586 P.2d 1012 (1978) for the proposition that where the danger is readily apparent and the plaintiff chooses to engage in the activity, no du......
  • Whitlock v. University of Denver
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 1985
    ...were familiar with these articles or with other information of this nature. Defendant argues that our holding in Burchinal v. Gregory, 41 Colo.App. 490, 586 P.2d 1012 (1978), is controlling in this instance. We In Burchinal we held that the mere ownership of a trampoline raised no duty to w......
    • 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