Court Opinion

ID: 9546069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:24:25.591045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:56.996197
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
dissenting:
I am not in accord with the reasoning or the result of the majority opinion in this case. What I said in Denver v. Madison, 142 Colo. 1, 351 P. (2d) 826, and what has been said by Mr. Justice Hall and by myself in the case of Liber v. Flor, released this day, apply with equal force to this case.
In the majority opinion it is stated that:
“We recognize that there have been numerous criti*243cisms of the rule applied in this case, emanating from various legal writers, judges and students of the law. Their criticisms and comments should be addressed to the legislature where constitutional authority rests to amend the law.”
I take issue with the suggestion that any modification of the rule applied by the majority be addressed to the legislature “where constitutional authority rests to amend the law.” The suggested legislation is unnecessary, because the constitution has already recognized and preserved the right of the plaintiffs, in that men have certain “natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives * * * and of seeking and obtaining their safety * * * ” Integrity of the complete physical person is constitutionally guaranteed, and there is no need for the legislature to grant what is already insured preservation by this fundamental document.