Opinion ID: 166965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty to Support Instruction.

Text: King Soopers claims that the district court erred in submitting comparative negligence to the jury because (1) it owed no duty to Hussmann, and (2) it could not have breached a duty because it was a tenant in the building rather than the owner. King Soopers contends that the district court erred in instructing on comparative negligence because King Soopers owed no duty to Hussmann. While King Soopers may not have owed a direct duty to Hussmann, it did have a general duty to exercise reasonable care. In cases where comparative negligence applies, the plaintiff has a “duty to protect oneself from unreasonable risk, and to act as a reasonably prudent person.” Powell, 507 P.2d at 1105; see also Burr v. Green Bros. Sheet Metal, Inc., 409 P.2d 511, 516 (Colo. 1966) (imposing on plaintiff a duty to exercise care required of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances). Thus, King Soopers had a duty to protect itself from unreasonable risk: Negligence involves the violation of a duty or an obligation of another; contributory negligence does not affect a duty but embraces an undue risk of harm to oneself. The true measure of conduct required of the plaintiff, is what would an ordinary prudent person have done under the circumstances as they then appeared to exist. Matt Skorey Packard Co. v. Canino, 350 P.2d 1069, 1071 (Colo. 1960) (per curiam). -9- If a plaintiff does not have a duty to exercise care, then the comparative negligence instruction is improper. Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574, 580-81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). King Soopers relies on a line of Colorado cases involving the failure to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets to support its contention that it had no duty and that the district court should not have instructed the jury on comparative negligence. King Soopers reasons that because the failure of an injured motorist to wear a seat belt does not constitute comparative negligence, neither does its conduct. However, these cases are limited to the failure to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets, and they are inapplicable here. E.g., Dare v. Sobule, 674 P.2d 960, 963 (Colo. 1984) (en banc) (motorcycle helmet); Churning v. Staples, 628 P.2d 180, 181-82 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981) (seat belt). Notably, the Colorado courts and legislature have not extended the seat belt exception to other types of pre-accident negligence. King Soopers invites this court to apply the seat belt exception to the facts of this case. King Soopers, however, offers no Colorado authority for such an extension, which appears contrary to Colorado cases that impose “a duty [upon plaintiff] to protect oneself from unreasonable risk, and to act as a reasonably prudent person.” Powell, 507 P.2d at 1105. King Soopers cites Burt v. Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church, 809 P.2d -10- 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990), as support for its argument that a property owner’s actions that contributed to the damages claimed do not constitute contributory negligence. But King Soopers misreads the Burt case, which involved both trespass and negligence claims. The Colorado Court of Appeals held that, “even if refusal to give a comparative negligence instruction was error as to the negligence theory, since the jury also found for plaintiffs on trespass, the verdict can be upheld on the trespass theory alone.” Burt, 809 P.2d at 1067. Contrary to King Soopers’ view of the case, the Burt court acknowledged that it is proper to consider a plaintiff’s own negligent action when determining liability in a negligence action brought by the plaintiff. King Soopers also argues that it could not have breached a duty because it was a tenant, and not the owner, of the building. This assertion misstates Colorado law on premises liability. In Colorado, King Soopers is a “landowner” for purposes of determining premises liability. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21115(1); Wark v. United States, 269 F.3d 1185, 1188 (10th Cir. 2001) (stating that Section 13-21-115(1) applies to “tenants . . . who have complete possession and control over the property”). Even as a lessee, King Soopers was included in the definition of a “landowner” and subject to the statute governing premises liability. See Pierson v. Black Canyon Aggregates, Inc., 48 P.3d 1215, 1219 n.4 (Colo. 2002) (en banc) (“The general assembly added without limitation specifically to -11- ensure that lessees and renters were included in the definition of landowner.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).