Source: https://www.denvertrial.com/news/
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 13:02:49
Document Index: 462216094

Matched Legal Cases: ['§13', '§13', '§13', '§13', '§13', '§13', '§13', '§13']

News Page for the Personal Injury Law Firm of Dormer Harpring
Understanding Plaintiff Status Under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act
October 15, 2019 • Categories Premises Liability
When an individual is injured or killed on another person or entity’s property as a result of an unsafe condition, the controlling law in the state of Colorado is C.R.S. §13-21-115 Actions against Landowners, often referred to as the Colorado Premises Liability Act.
Many elements need to be evaluated in a premises liability case. One of the most important factors in determining liability in a Colorado premises liability case is the plaintiff’s classification in the case. The question concerns the reason that the plaintiff was on the land where he or she became injured.
Under Colorado premises liability laws, a person injured on property falls into one of three categories related to the reason they were on the land in the first place. The injured party can be a “trespasser,” a “licensee,” or an “invitee.” Each category has their own level of duty of care. In addition, each category has different requirements to prove a claim for damages under the Colorado Premises Liability Act.
An invitee is a person who enters or remains on a property belonging to another person or entity while transacting business. The person has a mutually beneficial relationship with the property owner. Property owners owe invitees the highest level of duty of care, and invitees generally have the best chance of obtaining compensation for a premises liability claim.
CRS §13-21-115(5)(a) defines an invitee as “a person who enters or remains on the land of another to transact business in which the parties are mutually interested or who enters or remains on such land in response to the landowner’s express or implied representation that the public is requested, expected, or intended to enter or remain.”
Typically, invitees are customers or tenants. For example, when you shop at a grocery store or eat at a restaurant, you are considered an invitee. If you are renting an apartment, you are an invitee of the property owner. If you buy a ticket for a movie at a theater, you are an invitee if you are harmed at the theater.
Under the Premises Liability Act, CRS §13-21-115(3)(c)(I), “an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known.”
However, under CRS §13-21-115(3)(c)(2), if you are on land classified as agricultural land or vacant land for tax purposes, even as an invitee, you may only recover “damages caused by a landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew.”
A licensee is someone who enters or remains on a property with the permission of the property owner. Generally, licensees are social guests. If you were injured as a dinner guest at someone else’s home, you are usually considered a licensee. A property owner owes a licensee a more limited duty of care. These cases can be more difficult to prove legally, so it is important to find a specialist in premises liability cases to help you with your claim.
CRS §13-21-115(5)(b) defines a licensee as “a person who enters or remains on the land of another for the licensee’s own convenience or to advance his own interests, pursuant to the landowner’s permission or consent” and specifically includes “a social guest.”
CRS §13-21-115(3)(b) says that licensees may recover only for damages caused:
By the landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care with respect to dangers created by the landowner of which the landowner actually knew; or
By the landowner’s unreasonable failure to warn of dangers not created by the landowner which are not ordinarily present on property of the type involved and of which the landowner actually knew.
Invitees and licensees may be eligible for compensation after a premises liability accident, especially if the guest was on the property for a business purpose.
A trespasser is only owed a duty of care when intentional harm is at hand. A trespasser enters or remains on the property of another without the property owner’s consent. It is much more difficult for a trespasser to recover damages for an injury under Colorado premises liability law. The exception to this is if injuries or damages were deliberately caused by the property owner.
CRS §13-21-115(5)(c) defines “trespasser” as “a person who enters or remains on the land of another without the landowner’s consent.” Under the Premises Liability Act, §13-21-115(3)(a), “a trespasser may recover only for damages willfully or deliberately caused by the landowner.”
Contact Our Denver Premises Liability Lawyers
If you have been injured on another person or entity’s property, we recommend that you speak to our Denver premises liability lawyers as soon as possible. Your status under the Colorado Premises Liability Act is crucial to succeeding with a claim.
At Dormer Harpring, we can help you determine your status and ensure your rights are fully protected. For more information contact us at (303) 747-4404 or fill out our confidential contact form.
Dormer Harpring Trial Win
December 5, 2017 • CourtTrial,FirmVerdictCategories Trials, VerdictsTags CourtTrial, FirmVerdict
K.C. Harpring and Sean Dormer obtained a plaintiff’s verdict recently in a trial in Boulder District Court against Mark Gauthier of the Ross-Shannon Law firm.
DH’s client was injured in a low-speed rear-end car crash, but he also caused a second (high-speed) crash only four months later. Mark Gauthier was retained by Allstate to represent the at-fault driver in the first crash. Mr. Gauthier argued that the second crash caused the majority of DH’s client’s injuries and requested a complete defense verdict.
Despite a litany of objections by Mr. Gauthier and numerous unfavorable rulings by the court, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $11,990.03. After the addition of interest and costs, the award will be approximately 15 times Allstate’s initial offer of settlement and almost double its final offer before trial.
“We believed in our client and we wanted a much bigger win,” said Sean after the verdict, “but it feels really good to have a jury find for us in the face of so many obstacles. We owe a lot to our co-workers, friends, and family for helping us so much in getting ready.”
Mr. Gauthier and the Ross-Shannon Law firm have decades of experience representing the financial interests of insurance companies and corporations, and have obtained numerous defense verdicts in similar cases.
DH and the firm’s client are considering whether to appeal the court’s objection rulings, request a new trial, and seek a more full measure of justice.
October 5, 2017 • FirmNewsCategories TrialsTags FirmNews
I have had the honor and privilege of meeting both Sean Dormer and Natalie Gray. From the very beginning and throughout my case, they have offered their undivided time, attention and dedication to helping my husband and I, and to ease the process of everything that we have had to deal with. Sean and Natalie are both full of empathy and passion, and they are highly intelligent, extremely patient and very professional. They are very thorough with all of their communications and research, and we were so comforted by the fact that they were always one step ahead and always prepared. We wholeheartedly appreciate them and all of their hard work, sincerity, and commitment to helping us.
When I first met Sean I was defeated and giving up hope on the possibility that a lawyer might represent my case. However, Sean's ambition showed immediately, and his charisma was contagious. At that moment, I didn't care if we ever saw a penny, I was simply happy knowing that I had someone who believed in me and was willing to fight for me. Sean made me feel special by genuinely caring about me. Every time I spoke with him he was reassuring and he would instill hope upon me. As time went by, he never gave up. He was consistent with his communication and he never faltered. Eventually, Sean partnered with the others at Dormer, Harping & Gray, and even then, he maintained communication and kept working on my case. Slowly, Natalie and KC started to help with my case as well. Each and every one of them amazed me with their intelligence and incredible work ethic. They are truly a unique set of individuals with the highest level of integrity, compassion, and perseverance. In the end, they managed to get me an incredible outcome. I am forever grateful for their service and I cannot give them enough kind words. It was a blessing to have them on my side, and even more so to simply foster a relationship with them. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Mrs. Gray is great attorney, she got my case settled for the maximum amount allowed and she did it in just a few months. She kept me in the loop explained everything about what was going with the case. She made me feel very comfortable and at ease. She works very hard for her clients and I would recommend her to anyone needing representation.