Hoffman v. King Resources Co., No. C--500

• Docket Nº: No. C--500
• Citation: 530 P.2d 961
• Case Date: January 13, 1975
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 961

530 P.2d 961 187 Colo. 300 George A. HOFFMAN, Petitioner,
v.
KING RESOURCES COMPANY d/b/a Denver Airmotive Company, Respondent. No. C--500. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. Jan. 13, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1975.

[187 Colo. 301] L. B. Ullstrom, Denver, Thomas R. Moeller, Evergreen, for petitioner.

Blunk, Johnson & Allspach, Howard G. Allspach, Denver, for respondent.

Page 962

KELLEY, Justice.

Petition for writ of certiorari was granted in this case to review the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversing the trial court. Hoffman v. King Resources Company, Colo.App., 520 P.2d 1052 (1974).

The petitioner, the plaintiff at trial, originally instituted this suit when his airplane was damaged which parked on the premises of the respondent, the defendant at trial. In his complaint, the petitioner alleged that the respondent had been negligent in its construction of the system and the furnishing of equipment which the petitioner used to tie down and secure his airplane. The respondent answered, denying any negligence on its part and further asserting that the petitioner had been contributorily negligent and had assumed the particular risk involved. The trial court instructed the jury on the liability theory of negligence and the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the petitioner and the court entered judgment thereon.

The respondent appealed this judgment and the Court of Appeals reversed. The appeals court found the relationship between the parties to be that of landlord-tenant. Being such, the standard of care normally imposed upon a landlord was considered more appropriate than the negligence standard of reasonable care which the trial court and the parties followed. On this basis, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioner had 'presented no evidence which would permit the inference that (the respondent) knew or should have known that the tie-down system was defective.' In [187 Colo. 302] our opinion, the Court of Appeals incorrectly substituted a standard of care for that on which liability was premised in the trial court. Hence, we reverse the Court of Appeals' decision.

The following facts are pertinent to our holding: On August 22, 1969, the parties entered into a written contract whereby the petitioner was allotted space at the Jefferson County Airport on the premises controlled by respondent for purposes of parking and securing his airplane. The agreement contemplated that the respondent supply tie-down cables, a space between the cables, and chains and links for purposes of securing the petitioner's plane to the cables. The tie-down cables installed by the respondent consisted of two steel cables running parallel and firmly secured at each end by an anchoring post fixed in cement.

By the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was responsible for tying down his own airplane with the chains furnished by respondent. This was accomplished by attaching a chain to the strut of each wing and to the forward cable. A third chain was used to fasten the rear wheel of the airplane to the second cable. In each instance an obling link, also provided by the respondent, served to couple or attach the tie-down chain to the...