Court Opinion

ID: 9546571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:32:15.925898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:38.195440
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Moore
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. An experienced trial judge heard all the evidence introduced upon the trial and found that the city had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk which caused plaintiff’s injuries.
We cannot say, as a matter of law, that, in all cases and under all circumstances, two days is an insufficient period of time within which a municipal corporation may be charged with constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk. Heretofore the rule announced in City of Boulder v. Niles, 9 Colo. 415, 12 Pac. 632, has been well-established law in this jurisdiction. In that case our court said: “Whether or not, under all the circumstances, the defendant, through its officers, should have known of the obstruction and removed it, was a question for the jury. In determining this question, the extent of the snowfall, the condition of the weather thereafter, the location of the street where the obstruction was, as a public way, more or less frequented, the lapse of time between the snowfall and the accident, were all matters to be considered *336by them. If, in point of fact, the proper officers of the defendant city did not know of such obstruction when, by ordinary and due diligence and care, they ought to have known of it and removed it, the defendant must be held responsible as in case of actual notice.”
The majority opinion does violence to this rule and again evidences a diminishing respect for the findings of fact, made upon conflicting evidence, by a trial court.
I respectfully submit that the judgment should be affirmed.