Millard v. Smith, No. 71--075
| Docket Nº | No. 71--075 |
| Citation | 495 P.2d 234, 30 Colo.App. 466 |
| Case Date | March 14, 1972 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 234
v.
Joe Tom SMITH, Defendant-Appellee.
Hindry & Meyer, Joseph P. Jenkins, Gail F. Linn, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Johnson & McLachlan, Harlan Johnson, Lamar, for defendant-appellee.
DWYER, Judge.
[30 Colo.App. 467] Betty Millard, as plaintiff, brought this action to recover damages for negligence against the defendant, Joe Tom Smith. Upon motion, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint, and on this appeal, she seeks reversal of this judgment of dismissal.
In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that on November 23, 1969, she was operating her automobile on Highway 287 in Baca County, Colorado; that when she reached a point on said highway immediately adjacent to the ranch owned and operated by defendant, a cow owned by defendant appeared upon the highway immediately in front of her; that she swerved her automobile to avoid hitting the cow; that she lost control of her automobile, and it rolled over several times; and that she was injured as a result of the occurrence.
Page 235
Plaintiff further alleged that 'the occurrence hereinabove related was a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the Defendant in the care, tending and maintaining of said herd of cattle, and in the care and maintenance of his fences surrounding the enclosure wherein said cattle were pastured.'
The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Colorado is an open range state and that there is no legal basis for recovery of damages if cattle are upon another's land or upon a highway right-of-way because of the negligence of the owner of the cattle.
The only issue on this appeal is whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted. In deciding this issue, which was raised by defendant's motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Cook [30 Colo.App. 468] v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700. The complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which may be proved in support of the claim. See Hinsey v. Jones, 159 Colo. 326, 411 P.2d 242; Smith v. Mills, 123 Colo. 11, 225 P.2d 483. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant was negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. These allegations must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co., No. C016355
...reached in this opinion. Plaintiffs cite a trio of cases--Carrow Co. v. Lusby (1990) 167 Ariz. 18, 804 P.2d 747; Millard v. Smith (1972) 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234; and Grubb v. Wolfe (1965) 75 N.M. 601, 408 P.2d 756--that recognize that livestock owners are not absolved of all liabilit......
-
Carver v. Ford, No. 50729
...8 For example see Rodgers v. Webb, 335 F.Supp. 584 (E.D.Tenn.1971); Wilson v. Rule, 169 Kan. 296, 219 P.2d 690 (1950); Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234 (1972); Blakley v. Glase, 342 Ill.App. 90, 95 N.E.2d 128 (1950); Anderson v. Glascock, 271 S.W.2d 243 (Mo.App.1954); Sutton......
-
Silverman v. University of Colorado, No. 74--364
...(1) The material allegations of each claim must be taken as admitted, Cook v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700; Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234; and (2) dismissal of a claim is proper only if plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which may be proved......
-
Biella v. State Dept. of Highways, No. 81CA0245
...on the highway from the danger of trespassing livestock wandering into their path and causing an accident. See Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234 (1972). In light of the overall purpose of the fence law, it is my view that the right-of-way fence statute does not create a duty ......
-
Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co., No. C016355
...reached in this opinion. Plaintiffs cite a trio of cases--Carrow Co. v. Lusby (1990) 167 Ariz. 18, 804 P.2d 747; Millard v. Smith (1972) 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234; and Grubb v. Wolfe (1965) 75 N.M. 601, 408 P.2d 756--that recognize that livestock owners are not absolved of all liabilit......
-
Carver v. Ford, No. 50729
...8 For example see Rodgers v. Webb, 335 F.Supp. 584 (E.D.Tenn.1971); Wilson v. Rule, 169 Kan. 296, 219 P.2d 690 (1950); Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234 (1972); Blakley v. Glase, 342 Ill.App. 90, 95 N.E.2d 128 (1950); Anderson v. Glascock, 271 S.W.2d 243 (Mo.App.1954); Sutton......
-
Silverman v. University of Colorado, No. 74--364
...(1) The material allegations of each claim must be taken as admitted, Cook v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700; Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234; and (2) dismissal of a claim is proper only if plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which may be proved......
-
Biella v. State Dept. of Highways, No. 81CA0245
...on the highway from the danger of trespassing livestock wandering into their path and causing an accident. See Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234 (1972). In light of the overall purpose of the fence law, it is my view that the right-of-way fence statute does not create a duty ......