Vigil v. Pine
| Decision Date | 22 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. C--62,C--62 |
| Citation | 490 P.2d 934,176 Colo. 384 |
| Parties | Arlene VIGIL, Individually and Arlene Vigil, as Administratrix of the Estate of Fred R. Vigil, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Ernest H. PINE, Jr., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William Litvak, Denver, for petitioner.
Ben Klein, Denver, for respondent, Ernest H. Pine, Jr. Yegge, Hall & Evans, Wesley H. Doan, Denver, for respondents, John F. Telea, Inc. and John F. Telea, Jr.
Certiorari was granted in this case to review a judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals which affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff against defendant Ernest H. Pine, Jr., and reversed the judgment against defendants John F. Telea, Inc. and John F. Telea, Jr. Pine v. Vigil, 28 Colo.App. 601, 480 P.2d 868. The action was originally brought against the aforementioned defendants by the plaintiff Arlene Vigil for damages sustained by her as a result of the wrongful death of her husband, Fred R. Vigil. Arlene Vigil, petitioner in this case, will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff. Defendant Ernest Pine, Jr., will be referred to by name and defendants John F. Telea, Inc., and John F. Telea, Jr., will be referred to as Telea.
The record discloses that on March 6, 1965, plaintiff's husband, Fred Vigil, went to John's Lounge to drink beer and play pool. John's Lounge is a tavern which is solely owned and operated by defendant John Telea. After Vigil entered the lounge, he exchanged words with another patron, defendant Ernest H. Pine, Jr. According to all the evidence, Pine thereupon left his bar stool, struck Vigil, and knocked him to the floor. Pine then took hold of Vigil and beat his head against the cement floor several times. Vigil died several days later as a result of the beating he sustained.
Plaintiff thereafter filed this wrongful death action against both Pine and Telea. In her claim against Telea she alleged that he had negligently operated John's Lounge by continuing to serve alcoholic beverages to Pine even though Pine's violent tendencies were well known or should have been known to Telea. She also alleged that Telea, as owner and operator of a public tavern, had negligently failed to prevent Pine from inflicting fatal injuries upon Vigil.
At a trial before a jury, plaintiff introduced evidence designed to show that Telea knew from previous incidents within John's Lounge that Pine had tendencies to violent conduct in his relationships with other patrons of the establishment. The plaintiff presented testimony that there had been at least three prior altercations between Pine and other customers at John's Lounge, and that during one such occasion Pine had physically struck a patron. This evidence further showed that Telea was present and had observed these previous incidents. In connection with this, there was testimony that just after Pine finished hitting Vigil's head on the floor Telea came to the couch upon which Vigil had been put and said 'Not again.' Plaintiff also presented testimony that Telea had had an opportunity to physically intervene and protect Vigil from Pine's fatal beating. There was testimony that Telea was behind the bar during the altercation between Vigil and Pine and that Telea could have jumped over the bar and restrained Pine before knocking Vigil's head on the floor.
Telea disputed plaintiff's allegation that he knew Pine was of a violent disposition and that he could have prevented the beating. Telea's witnesses testified that prior to the incident with Vigil, Pine had not conducted himself in a manner within John's Lounge which would have led Telea to believe that he was a violent or vicious customer. Telea also introduced testimony which indicated that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gallegos
...and did not constitute impermissible bolstering. See Pine v. Vigil, 28 Colo.App. 601, 480 P.2d 868 (1970), rev'd on other grounds, 176 Colo. 384, 490 P.2d 934. III. Finally, we consider the defendant's contentions that Colorado's habitual criminal statute, section 16-13-101(2), C.R.S.1973 (......
-
Mason v. Royal Dequindre, Inc.
...the Restatement and found that merchants have a duty to protect their patrons from reasonably foreseeable injuries. See Vigil v. Pine, 176 Colo. 384, 490 P.2d 934 (1971); A Trysting Place, Inc. v. Kelly, 245 So.2d 875 (Fla.App., 1971); McGill v. Frasure, 117 Idaho 598, 790 P.2d 379 (1990); ......
-
Ackmann v. Merchants Mortg. & Trust Corp.
...record reflects that such findings are supported by substantial evidence and so cannot be disturbed on appeal. E.g., Vigil v. Pine, 176 Colo. 384, 490 P.2d 934 (1971). However, the court of appeals held that in order to commit fraudulent concealment Woodmoor must have concealed facts that m......
-
I.M.A., Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc.
...competent evidence in the record to support the findings. Aurora v. Loveless, 639 P.2d 1061, 1063 (Colo.1981); Vigil v. Pine, Jr., 176 Colo. 384, 387, 490 P.2d 934, 936 (1971). Application of these general principles to the present case yields the conclusion that the evidence and the law su......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...the jury makes the finding on conflicting evidence, and where the jury has been correctly instructed by the trial court. Vigil v. Pine, 176 Colo. 384, 490 P.2d 934 (1971). Applied in McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Fifty-first Gen. Ass'y, 198......
-
Rule 49 CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING REVIEW ON CERTIORARI.
...the jury makes the finding on conflicting evidence, and where the jury has been correctly instructed by the trial court. Vigil v. Pine, 176 Colo. 384, 490 P.2d 934 (1971). Applied in McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Fifty-first Gen. Ass'y, 198......