Colorado and Denver Civil Litigation Attorney - JD Porter LLC (2023)

Civil litigation generally involves claims for damages or injunctive relief. Injunctive relief is an order or judgment requiring a party to take or refrain from taking a specific action, such as producing goods. or services. If you are dealing with or considering litigation, hiring a civil litigation attorney in Denver or Colorado can make the process a lot easier. Court proceedings are often nuanced and each type of civil litigation claim is different, meaning pursuing or defending a civil claim can be difficult and confusing. In particular and among others:

A Colorado and Denver civil attorney can help you assess what civil claims you may have to file

A Denver and Colorado civil litigation attorney can help you evaluate whether civil litigation is the most effective way to obtain the compensation you seek.

A Colorado and Denver civil attorney can explain the process and help you prepare to navigate this process.

A Denver and Colorado civil rights attorney can help you seek the damages or compensation needed to fairly compensate you for your injury.

And a Denver and Colorado civil litigation attorney can help you defend against civil claims if you are the defendant.

If you are involved in civil litigation or are looking for a civil law attorney, J.D. Porter, LLC offers outstanding legal services. The firm has routinely accepted and won difficult and high-profile civil cases, in some cases with odds of less than ten percent. JD Porter achieves this by interacting with clients on a personal level, which in turn allows the firm to focus intensely on the client's case, understand the client's case and deliver high-quality, effective results. Consequently, J.D. Porter can assist you with your civil litigation needs. This publication describes the common types of civil claims that are commonly filed in civil litigation.

There are a significant number of civil claims, also called civil causes of action, that may be brought in a court proceeding. The following is a list and discussion of common causes of civil claims and civil suits commonly filed in Colorado and Denver courts and recognized by Colorado and Denver courts. The list is not intended to be exhaustive of all causes of action available in the Colorado and Denver courts, nor is it intended to constitute a complete discussion of the causes of action set forth in this document.

Abuse of process is a cause of action relating to the abuse of legal action to extort an advantage. Misuse of the process generally requires:

(1) an ulterior motive in the application of legal process;

(2) intentional acts of a party in using processes that are inappropriate for the normal conduct of a judicial proceeding;

(3) damage; And

(4) the complaint lacked an appropriate factual basis or an identifiable legal basis.

Damages for an abuse of procedure claim may include attorneys' fees expended in defending the claim and possibly punitive damages if there is sufficient evidence of malicious or intentional or lewd conduct at the time the claim was filed.Ver Active Release Techniques, LLC gegen Xtomic, LLC, 413 S.3d 210 (Colo. App. 2017).

Similar to abuse of process claims, malicious law enforcement claims seek damages for intentionally unlawfully pursuing unjustified legal action. The claim may apply to both civil and criminal claims and differs from abuse of process claims in that malicious prosecution claims require the plaintiff to demonstrate malice and that the underlying proceeding is decided in the plaintiff's favour. Under Colorado law, for malicious prosecution claims, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) the defendant participated in or assisted in a previous proceeding against the plaintiff;

(2) the above action has been decided in favor of plaintiff;

(3) there was no probable cause for the prior action, or the defendant did not reasonably believe that the prior action would be successful;

(4) the prior action was brought by the defendant with intent or any other improper motive; And

(5) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

If a plaintiff establishes a claim for malicious prosecution, she is entitled to the actual damage directly caused by the proceedings. This includes emotional distress, humiliation, damage to reputation, loss of time and business, and attorneys' fees incurred in defending the above litigation. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded, since malicious prosecution generally presupposes that the prior proceeding was instituted with intent or an improper motive.Ver Hewitt vs. Rice, 154 S.3d 408 (Colo. 2007).

Possession claims refer to the lawful possession of property. In particular, prejudicial possession is a traditional defense to quell ownership or eviction lawsuits, where the person asserting prejudicial possession is essentially claiming that they are the true owner of the property based on how long they have owned it of property was. . In particular, unfavorable possession requires:

(1) actual possession;

(2) Possession is disadvantageous;

(3) Possession is hostile;

(4) is made under claim of right;

(5) is exclusive; And

(6) Possession is uninterrupted during the statutory period.

In Colorado, the legal limit for claiming possession is 18 years. Accordingly, in accordance with the elements above, the opposing owner must have owned the disputed property for 18 years in order to succeed in an opposing property claim. It is important to note that if the true owner grants the beneficial owner permission to use the property during the legal period, a beneficial ownership claim is nullified as ownership is no longer beneficial. If an opposing owner prevails over your claim, you will be awarded title to the disputed property.

Animal harm claims refer precisely to injuries caused by animals. In general, there are two categories of animal injuries that can give rise to liability: injuries caused by pets, e.g. dogs, cats, etc.; and injuries from wild animals, e.g. B. Tigers, bobcats, bears, etc. For injuries caused by pets, Colorado law requires:

(1) the animal had malicious tendencies;

(2) the owner had knowledge or knowledge of the animal's malicious tendencies; And

(3) the owner has failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury as a result of the malicious tendencies.

In addition, there are legal requirements to justify liability for serious bodily harm caused by a dog bite. See C.R.S. §13-21-124. Those are:

(1) the plaintiff suffered serious bodily injury or death;

(2) as a result of a dog bite;

(3) while lawfully on public or private property.

In the case of wild animals, absolute liability generally applies, i.e. if an owner owns or keeps a wild animal, they are automatically liable for damage caused by the animal. The plaintiff does not have to prove negligence on the part of the owner or other elements as is required for animal bites.

Bodily harm is a tort in which the accused fears the plaintiff of harmful or abusive behavior by the accused. Contrary to popular belief, an attack does not require actual physical contact. Assault in Colorado requires a plaintiff to prove:

(1) the defendant intended to cause abusive or harmful bodily harm to the plaintiff or to cause the plaintiff to worry about such contact;

(2) the behavior of the defendant caused the plaintiff to fear imminent personal contact; And

(3) the contact was or appeared to be harmful or offensive.

As a result, a Colorado plaintiff can bring an assault claim even if there was no actual physical contact, the plaintiff merely feared imminent contact. Specifically, battery requires that the defendant acted with intent to cause bodily harm to the plaintiff or to cause the plaintiff to fear bodily harm. Accordingly, the defendant's incidental contact or actions do not constitute liability for personal injury.

Unlike an attack, a battery requires actual physical contact for it to occur. Specifically, the elements of attack under Colorado law are:

(1) the respondent intended to enter into a harmful or objectionable contract with the plaintiff or intended to cause the plaintiff to fear harmful or objectionable contact; And

(2) Harmful or abusive contact with the complainant actually took place, either directly or indirectly.

If a plaintiff has a personal injury claim, he or she may be entitled to damages for both physical injury resulting from contact and non-economic damages for pain and suffering, e.g. B. fear, anxiety, indignation and unhappiness. In addition, if the circumstances are sufficiently outrageous, the plaintiff may seek and receive punitive damages if the violation was accompanied by fraud, bad faith, or intentional and wanton conduct.

Bad faith breach of an insurance contract is a claim arising out of liability in tort and arising out of an insurer's bad faith refusal of an insurance claim. In general, insurers have a duty of good faith in dealing with an insured and similarly in handling an insured's claims on their insurance.

Claims due to fraudulent breach of the insurance contract can generally only be asserted by the person who actually concluded the contract with the insurance company; say. In Colorado, bad faith insurance contract claims generally require:

(1) the defendant acted improperly in denying an insurance claim, either with knowledge of the improper conduct or in negligent disregard for whether its conduct was improper; And

(2) the inappropriate behavior of the defendant caused the plaintiff harm or loss.

If a malicious breach of insurance claim is successful, the plaintiff may seek non-economic damages as well as economic damages, including damages for emotional distress, loss of income or employment, deterioration in creditworthiness, deterioration in physical condition, attorneys' fees, and possibly punitive damages.

Breach of contract claims are self-explanatory and arise when a party breaches a contract that it was required to perform. The general elements of an infringement action are:

(1) there was a contract between the parties;

(2) the plaintiff performed its part of the contract or the plaintiff's breach of contract was justified;

(3) the defendant breached his part of the contract; And

(4) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defendant's violation.

Generally, the statute of limitations for contract actions in Colorado and Denver courts is three years. See C.R.S. §13-80-103.5. However, certain types of contracts are subject to longer limitation periods. See for example C.R.S. §13-80-103.5. In addition, the Colorado Fraud Statute regulates what types of contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. C.R.S. §38-10-112.

Typical damages for a breach of contract claim include the amount of money necessary to restore the non-defaulting party to the position it was in prior to the breach. Specifically, under the Colorado economic loss rule, only economic damages can be recovered from a breach of contract, meaning damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, etc. are not recoverable. However, this non-pecuniary damage may be recoverable if the contract expressly provides for it or if the claim for breach of the insurance contract is filed in bad faith.

Breach of contract is a tort recognized by the Colorado and Denver courts for which a plaintiff may sue a third party for causing the plaintiff's breach of contract. Interventions in contractual relationships require in particular:

(1) a valid contract between the claimant and a third party;

(2) the defendant's knowledge of the contract or of facts causing him to inquire as to the existence of a contract;

(3) the defendant's intention to induce the third party to breach the contract;

(4) illegal or improper action by the defendant that induces the third party to breach the contract; And

(5) damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the breach.

In particular, it is not generally unreasonable under Colorado law to interfere in a contract where there is competition between the parties, such as a competition for employees on the basis of compensation. Conversely, bringing about a breach of contract on the basis of physical force, fraud, civil actions and criminal prosecution are generally considered abusive and may give rise to liability for willful interference with the contract right.

In the event of intentional interference with the contractual relationship, the compensation for damages is not necessarily subject to contractual compensation law. While contractual damages typically do not include non-economic damages, such as in lieu of a claim. claim for breach of contract. Punitive damages can also be recovered if the circumstances are severe enough.

A fiduciary duty is a duty to another person to act primarily in the best interests of that person in matters performed by the trustee for that person. The duties of a trustee include a duty of loyalty, a duty to use reasonable care and skill, and a duty to treat beneficiaries fairly. In Colorado, a breach of a fiduciary duty requires:

(1) the defendant acted as trustee for the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant breached the duty of loyalty;

(3) the plaintiff suffered damage as a result; And

(4) The breach of the defendant's duty of care caused the damage to the plaintiff.

Some examples of relationships in which a fiduciary duty may exist are: between partners in a business entity, officers and directors who have a fiduciary duty to the company and its shareholders, and financial planners and their clients. Furthermore, where there is a confidential relationship between parties or organizations, this may be sufficient to establish a fiduciary duty if the plaintiff has placed a trust in the defendant and the defendant has relied on that trust and agreed to act in the best interest of the plaintiff act. .

The Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (“COCCA”) is analogous to the federal Criminal Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and provides for plaintiffs to bring a civil action where illegal debts have been collected or there is an organized crime pattern. Activity. C.R.S. § 18-17-106(7). In order to successfully win a COCCA lawsuit, the plaintiff must show the defendant:

(1) violates any provision of C.R.S. §18-17-104; And

(2) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of a violation of these provisions.

Generally speaking, C.R.S. Section 18-17-104 prohibits a person from knowingly using proceeds from the collection of an unlawful debt or proceeds from organized crime activities to acquire property in real estate or to start or operate a business. Importantly, the law requires the accused to knowingly engage in the prohibited conduct, meaning there can be no negligent violation of COCCA. Additionally, if a plaintiff establishes a COCCA violation, he or she is entitled to seek treble the damages incurred and attorneys' fees to pursue the lawsuit.

Civil conspiracy is a tortious claim that requires two or more people to have agreed or acted together to accomplish something illegal. In Colorado, to prove a civil conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must show:

(1) two or more persons;

(2) traded with a purpose to be fulfilled;

(3) the people involved have agreed on the objective or the course of action;

(4) committed a manifest intentional and unlawful act; And

(5) The action directly caused damage to the plaintiff.

Examples of manifest unlawful activity include, but are not limited to, activity constituting appearances of breach of contract, wrongful termination, common law fraud and defamation. If a civil conspiracy claim is proven, the defendants involved are jointly and severally liable for the judgment, meaning that all defendants are liable for the full sum of the judgment.

The Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) is designed to deter and punish fraudulent business practices by companies that deal with the public. The law allows the Colorado Attorney General to bring lawsuits as well as private lawsuits by individuals. In order to prevail in a CCPA claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) the defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive commercial practice within the meaning of C.R.S. § 6-1-105(1);

(2) the practice was in the course of the respondent's business, calling, or profession;

(3) the practice has a significant impact on the public as actual or potential consumers of the defendant's goods, services or property;

(4) the plaintiff has suffered actual damage to a legal interest; And

(5) The practice caused the plaintiff's damage.

Deceptive Business Practices Identified in the C.R.S. Section 6-1-105(1) is generally aimed at businesses that make false or misleading claims about the sale of goods or services. Importantly, liability under the also requires that the unfair and deceptive trading practice affects the public, which means that a dispute that affects only the two parties involved is not an actionable CCPA claim.

Defendants found to have violated the law will be liable for the greater of actual damage, $500, or three times the actual damage if there is clear and convincing evidence that the violation was in bad faith intention was made. In addition, the CCPA permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorneys' fees incurred in litigating.

Constructive fraud in Colorado is a breach of duty that the law declares fraudulent because it tends to deceive, violate trust, or harm the public interest. The elements of constructive fraud have not been specifically established by the Colorado courts; However, the elements of actual cheating are instructive as to what constitutes constructive cheating. The elements of a fraud claim are discussed below, but in general a fraud claim requires the following:

(1) the accused has misrepresented a past or present fact;

(2) the fact was essential;

(3) the defendant made the representation knowing it was false or knowing that he did not know it was true or false;

(4) the defendant made the statement with the intent that the plaintiff would invoke it;

(5) the plaintiff relied on representation;

(6) plaintiff's confidence was justified; And

(7) The confidence resulted in damage to the plaintiff.

While there is uncertainty as to what is required to prove constructive fraud, the Colorado Federal District Court has indicated that a critical element of constructive fraud is the existence of a confidential or fiduciary duty by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Conversion of property is a tort claim in which a plaintiff seeks damages for another person's encroachment on their property. Generally, commutation occurs when the plaintiff is physically deprived of the use of his property to the extent that the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for the full value of the property. An example of a commutation would be where the defendant physically takes or steals the plaintiff's property. To make a conversion claim, the plaintiff must show:

(1) the defendant committed an independent and unauthorized act of property or ownership;

(2) the personal property of the plaintiff.

In particular, the temporary exclusion of a plaintiff from possession of his assets does not justify a conversion claim: the actions of the defendant must be sufficient to effectively deprive the plaintiff of full use of the assets. However, the temporary exclusion may result in a suit for usurpation of personal property, which does not require full exercise of title to the property.

If a plaintiff succeeds in her claim for conversion, she is entitled to full compensation for the value of the property plus interest at the statutory rate from the time of conversion to the time of trial. In addition, damages for lost profits and punitive damages may also be sought if the property was seized in a manner that constitutes willful disregard for the rights of the plaintiff.

Defamation is false communication to a third party that causes a person to be despised, ridiculed, or have their reputation damaged. In Colorado, in order to establish a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff must show:

(1) a defamatory statement about another;

(2) the declaration was made to a third party;

(3) in the event of at least negligent fault on the part of the publisher; And

(4) The objection can be sued as such or on the basis of a special claim for damages.

A defamatory statement is one that tends to damage another's reputation. It's important to note that there's a difference between an opinion that isn't actionable; and a defamatory statement that is contestable. In its simplest form, an opinion is a statement that cannot be proven true or false, while a defamatory statement has sufficient factual basis to be proved false.

In addition, there are two types of defamatory statements: those that are defamatory per se and those that are not defamatory per se and require special harm to prove. Examples of statements that are inherently defamatory include statements alleging that the plaintiff has committed a crime; that the plaintiff is suffering from an abominable disease; or statements defaming the plaintiff in his trade, business, profession or trade.

Compensation for defamatory statements includes compensation for damage to reputation, personal humiliation, mental or physical suffering, loss of income or damage to creditworthiness. In the case of defamatory statements per se, the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statement actually damaged his reputation; However, for statements that are not defamatory per se, the plaintiff must prove particular damage in the form of reputational damage.

DRAM shop liability is the liability that bars and other establishments have for personal injury or property damage caused by an intoxicated customer who is served alcohol by the establishment. Under current law, liability for DRAM memory is strictly legal and C.R.S. §12-47-801. Specifically, for a plaintiff to prevail in a DRAM liability law, he must demonstrate that:

(1) she is a qualified applicant under the law;

(2) the respondent is a licensed facility or social host;

(a) if the accused is a licensed establishment, the accused intentionally and knowingly served alcohol to a person who:

(i) under the age of 21; either

(ii) are visibly intoxicated.

(b) if Respondent is a social host, Respondent knowingly;

(i) served alcohol to any person under the age of 21; either

(ii) has provided a place for anyone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol.

(3) serving or permitting immediate consumption of alcohol resulted in plaintiff's injury.

For a plaintiff to qualify under the law, the plaintiff must be an injured party, which means that the person who consumed the alcohol cannot claim DRAM business liability under the law because they would not be a qualified plaintiff.

Additionally, damages under the law are limited to $150,000, adjusted for 1998 inflation. The cap applies only between one defendant and one individual, so total liability could exceed the cap if there are multiple injured plaintiffs or multiple defendants.

Unlawful detention is an unlawful restriction on a person's freedom of movement. To prove a wrongful claim of detention, the plaintiff must show:

(1) the defendant willfully restricted the plaintiff's freedom of movement;

(2) the Complainant's freedom of movement was restricted for a period of time either directly or indirectly by the Defendant;

(3) The plaintiff was aware that his freedom of movement was restricted.

Examples of false arrest range from being stopped and questioned for stealing from a department store to false arrest and false arrest by police officers. It is important to note that directing or instigating a police officer to make a false arrest, for example by falsely reporting a crime, can result in a person being held liable for false arrest.

Compensation for damages due to deprivation of liberty includes compensation for bodily harm and non-pecuniary damage such as mental pain and suffering. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded where the circumstances are sufficiently egregious to show that the false detention was done with malicious intent or with such wanton and reckless disregard for the plaintiff's right to establish a wrongful motive.

Forced Entry and Detention ("FED") actions, more commonly known as evictions [], are actions taken to remove a person and their belongings from the property of the to remove the plaintiff. Under Colorado law, Fed action requires:

(1) the landlord must prove that he has a right of possession;

(2) the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship through which the tenant entered the property; And

(3) The defendant wrongly retains ownership.

One of the most common causes of action in a Fed lawsuit is the defendant's failure to pay rent on time. In particular, damages for an FED claim may include rental value during the period that the defendant abusively retained possession of the premises and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation to bring the claim.

Fraud is a tort or bodily harm resulting from a gross misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact. Specifically, to prove fraud under Colorado law, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) the accused has misrepresented a past or present fact;

(2) the fact was essential;

(3) the defendant made the representation knowing it was false or knowing that he did not know it was true or false;

(4) the defendant made the statement with the intent that the plaintiff would invoke it;

(5) the plaintiff relied on representation;

(6) plaintiff's confidence was justified; And

(7) The confidence resulted in damage to the plaintiff.

It is important to note that filing a fraud claim requires a high standard of proof. In particular, the claim of alleged fraud must be set out in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the claim seeks remedy for a specific harm and is not merely aimed at finding errors in general.

The remedies for a successful fraud claim include actual damage, i.e. H. the value of the damage actually suffered. This may include the difference between the market value of a particular property and the value it would have if the misrepresentation were true. Consequential damage and immaterial damage such as mental suffering can also be awarded. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded if the fraudulent acts are sufficient to demonstrate malicious intent.

Deliberate infliction of emotional distress is a tort claim seeking damages for a person who intentionally inflicts emotional distress on the plaintiff. In Colorado, in order to prove a claim for intentionally inflicting emotional distress, the plaintiff must show:

(1) the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct;

(2) the accused committed such conduct recklessly or with intent to cause serious emotional distress to the complainant;

(3) The plaintiff suffered severe mental stress as a result.

It is important to note that the level of behavior required to be considered extreme and rude behavior is relatively high. The behavior must be so extreme that it exceeds the limits of decency that a normal person in a civilized society should endure. In particular, simple insults or disparagements are usually not enough to meet this requirement.

Harms for intentionally inflicting emotional distress include economic and non-economic losses resulting from the behavior, e.g. B. Money for therapy, pain and suffering, etc. Punitive damages are also allowed if the behavior is egregious enough to prove fraudulent. , with malice, or was stubborn and unrestrained.

The Colorado courts have recognized three causes of violation of privacy: (1) misappropriation of another person's name and likeness; (2) improper publicity for another person's private life; (3) inappropriate intrusion into another's privacy. The specific elements for each claim are:

Appropriation of another's name and likeness

(1) the defendant used the plaintiff's name or likeness;

(2) the use of the Complainant's name or likeness was for the Defendant's own purpose or benefit; And

(3) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

Inappropriate publicity for another person's private life

(1) the disclosed fact must be private in nature;

(2) the disclosure must be public;

(3) disclosure must be made in a manner that a reasonable person would find highly objectionable;

(4) the disclosed fact must not be of legitimate public interest;

(5) the defendant acted in reckless or willful disregard for the privacy of the disclosed fact; And

(6) The disclosure resulted in damage to the plaintiff.

Unreasonable intrusion into another's seclusion

(1) another person has intentionally entered physically or otherwise;

(2) due to plaintiff's imprisonment or loneliness;

(3) the intrusion would be offensive to a reasonable person; And

(4) The invasion was the cause of the plaintiff's damage.

Compensation for breach of privacy claims includes personal injury and moral damage. Such damages include: damages for harming the interest of privacy as a result of the interference, damages for mental anguish and special damages resulting from the invasion of privacy. In addition, plaintiffs may be entitled to nominal damages if other damages are not proven. Privacy: A Common Law and Constitutional Crossroads, 40 Colo. Law. 55 (2001).

Legal error is the negligent representation of a client that results in damage to the client resulting from the attorney's negligence. Specifically, Colorado law requires that a plaintiff asserting a claim of legal wrongdoing must demonstrate:

(1) counsel had a duty of care to plaintiff;

(2) the attorney has breached this duty; And

(3) The lawyer's violation led directly to damages for the plaintiff.

It is important to note that C.R.S. Section 13-20-601 requires that a certificate of verification be filed in all claims alleging negligence on behalf of a professional accountant, including attorney error. The certificate of verification must certify that the requesting party has consulted an expert in a field relevant to the claims being filed and that the claims are not frivolous or baseless. In particular, a certificate of verification is required by law and a case will be dismissed if no certificate of verification is filed in the claim.

Once a plaintiff proves a malpractice claim, he is entitled to actual damages representative of the actual loss suffered as a result of attorney's negligence. This may include attorneys' fees for incompetently performed services and other attorneys' fees incurred to correct negligent work. Punitive damages may also be awarded where the circumstances are serious enough to show that the negligent act was committed through fraud, bad faith, or intentional and wanton conduct. In addition, interest in damages can be claimed from the time the action is filed. C.R.S. § 13-21-101(1).

Like legal malpractice, medical malpractice is a lawsuit brought against a doctor for alleged negligence. As with medical malpractice, medical malpractice requires the submission of a report stating that a medical expert has been consulted and the allegation is not frivolous or is essentially unfounded. To establish a medical practice claim under Colorado law, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) that the defendant had a legal obligation to care for the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant breached this duty; And

(3) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defendant's breach of duty.

Compensation for damages due to medical malpractice is limited by law. In particular, C.R.S. Section 13-64-302 provides that damages in a civil action brought against a healthcare professional, on a cash value basis, shall not exceed $1 million per patient. However, the court can waive the restraint for important reasons that would lead to an unfair result. In addition, financial and immaterial damages can be asserted as part of medical liability proceedings.

A general negligence action involves breach of a duty owed to someone and damages resulting from that breach. In other words, negligence involves doing or not doing an act that, considering the circumstances, should have been done differently. More specifically, a claim for common negligence under Colorado law requires the plaintiff to prove that:

(1) the defendant had a legal obligation to the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant breached this duty; And

(3) the breach resulted in harm to the plaintiff.

The question of whether the defendant had a legal obligation to the plaintiff is a legal issue and therefore must be decided by the court. Importantly, the Colorado Supreme Court listed a number of factors in determining whether a duty existed, including: (1) the risk involved; (2) the predictability and likelihood of harm versus the social utility of the actor's behavior; (3) the cargo that would need to be protected from damage; and (4) the consequences of filing charges against the actor. However, these factors are not definitive and none of the factors are dispositive. Essentially, the question of whether there is a duty of care boils down to whether a reasonable person would recognize that there was a duty of care.

If a plaintiff proves his claim of negligence, he can claim economic and non-material damages. Examples of economic losses include property damage, medical bills incurred, and overhead expenses incurred as a result of the breach. Non-financial damages, on the other hand, include immeasurable damages for financial losses, such as pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress and impairment of quality of life.

Negligent Confidence is a claim arising out of negligence and constitutes a tort seeking remedy for the Defendant's entrustment of an item to an individual, regardless of the potential harm of such confiscation. Common examples are allowing a drunk person to use your car and giving access to a gun to someone you know to be dangerous. In order to establish a negligent entrustment claim, Colorado law requires:

(1) that Defendant, directly or through a third party, permitted another party to use an Item;

(2) the accused knew or had reason to know;

(3) that the caretaker of the object due to youth, inexperience or any other reason;

(4) you are likely to have used the item in a way that involved an unreasonable risk; And

(5) the use of the item caused bodily harm to the recipient or others.

Plaintiffs establishing a negligent escrow claim may seek both economic and noneconomic damages, which include pecuniary loss, such as B. loss of property and expenses or costs incurred; and intangible losses, such as B. emotional distress and pain and suffering. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded if the circumstances are sufficient to justify it.

Negligent hiring occurs when an employer hires a person when, given that person's background, the employer should have reason to believe that hiring that person would pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others. More specifically, for a claim for negligent hiring under Colorado law, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) that Defendant owed Plaintiff a statutory duty of care in the selection of its employees;

(2) the defendant breached this duty; And

(3) The defendant's violation caused the plaintiff damage.

The level of care an employer must exercise in selecting an employee depends on the specific circumstances of the job. However, if the work is likely to expose others to a serious risk of serious harm, the employer has a special duty of investigation. This may include conducting background checks, criminal background checks, and prior employment background checks. Common examples of negligent hiring may include hiring an individual with a history of DUI and moving violations as a delivery driver and hiring an individual with a history of theft for a position that allows the individual to access customer funds.

Plaintiffs who prove a negligent hiring claim can claim economic and immaterial damage. Mental stress and pain and suffering can be claimed as non-economic damage. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded if the circumstances are sufficient to justify it.

Negligent misrepresentation is a remedy claim for disclosing false information to the plaintiff. Under Colorado law, in order to establish negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) the defendant negligently provided false information to the plaintiff;

(2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that information; And

(3) the disclosure of the false information resulted in the plaintiff being disadvantaged.

It is important to note that negligent misrepresentation is distinct from fraud or other claims requiring willful, intentional or willful misrepresentation. A negligent deception, on the other hand, only presupposes that the plaintiff was owed a duty of care and that incorrect information was negligently given to him. Some examples of negligent misrepresentation are an engineer's failure to disclose structural damage and a physician's failure to disclose risks associated with medical treatment.

Compensation for negligent misrepresentation claims based on monetary loss includes the difference between the actual value of what the plaintiff received and what he paid for it, and pecuniary loss incurred as a result of the plaintiff relying on the left misrepresentation. Non-economic damage, such as B. mental stress, can also be reimbursed if the negligent misrepresentation is not based solely on economic damage, e.g. B. Failure to disclose the risks of treatment that result in pain and suffering to the complainant.

At the most basic level, a harassment claim serves to protect an owner's right to the comfort and enjoyment of their property. It's important to note that harassment falls into two categories: public harassment and private harassment. Public harassment is dealt with in C.R.S. § 16-13-301 to 16-13-310 and exploitation-oriented due to violation of public rights. In contrast, private harassment is based on a person's ownership of property and, under Colorado law, requires the plaintiff to demonstrate:

(1) the defendant interfered unreasonably and materially;

(2) Claimant's use and exploitation of property.

Importantly, the intrusion of harassment into the complainant's country must be significant enough for an ordinary person in the community to find it offensive, disruptive, or uncomfortable. Examples of private nuisance include excessive levels of noise, odors and stenches emanating from nearby properties, and chemicals or radioactivity threatening the health and safety of neighbors.

Remedies for harassment generally include a court order prohibiting the harmful conduct and, if a court order to mitigate the harassment is unavailable, damages for diminished property value as a result of the conduct may be awarded. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded where the circumstances are severe enough to justify it.

Building liability lawsuits are lawsuits seeking redress for damage that has occurred to the defendant's property. Liability for Colorado facilities is handled by C.R.S. §13-21-115. To establish a building liability claim under Colorado law, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) the defendant was a landowner;

(2) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care;

(3) the defendant breached the duty of care; And

(4) The violation resulted in damages for the plaintiff.

Importantly, the Buildings Liability Act distinguishes between the status of a plaintiff when located on the defendant's property. Under the law, the duty of care owed to the defendant depends on whether the plaintiff is an intruder, licensee, or invitee.

Compensation for a building liability claim is set by law and also depends on the state of the plaintiff. In general, it is easier for a guest to recover relative to a licensee and easier for a licensee to recover relative to an intruder. In addition, plaintiffs may assert claims for economic, non-pecuniary, and punitive damages if the circumstances are sufficient to justify it.

Product liability claims seek compensation for damage or injury suffered by a plaintiff while using a particular product. A certain type of product liability claim is based on a misrepresentation made to the public about the character or quality of a particular product. Under Colorado law, in order to establish a product liability defect claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that:

(1) the defendant sold the product while selling the product for resale, use, or consumption;

(2) Defendant misrepresented a fact regarding the character or quality of the Product that would be important to purchasers of the Product or members of the public;

(3) the Claimant or a third party purchased the Product and reasonably relied on the misrepresentation; And

(4) the plaintiff has suffered harm as a result of his or a third party's reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation.

It is important to note that product liability claims for misrepresentation are strict liability claims, which means that it does not matter whether the misrepresentation was made intentionally, recklessly or negligently; if a false statement is made without intent, this can lead to liability.

For product liability claims based on misrepresentation, recoverable damages include actual damages. While the plaintiff may be able to recover for physical damage incurred as a result of using the product, damages cannot be recovered for commercial or business loss.

Product liability claims for negligence are generally directed against products that are unreasonably dangerous or for which the manufacturer failed to warn of the danger and use of which resulted in injury to the plaintiff. Specifically, Colorado law requires that a plaintiff filing a product liability claim must demonstrate the following:

(1) the defendant had a legal obligation to care for the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant breached this duty; And

(3) The breach by the defendant resulted in damage to the plaintiff.

A product manufacturer may breach its duty to a claimant by developing a product that is unreasonably dangerous or poses an unreasonable risk of injury or property damage when the product is used in a way that the defendant should reasonably have expected.

Compensation for a successful product liability negligence claim includes pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In addition, the Colorado economic loss rule, which limits damages to economic damages only, does not apply to claims of product liability for negligence unless a court finds that the defendant has no duty of parts independent of any contractual obligations.

Product liability claims based on strict liability are similar to claims for negligence; However, strict liability claims do not require proof of a breach of duty. In general, no-fault liability applies if the product is proven to be dangerous. Consequently, liability is independent of the actions of the defendant. Under Colorado law, a strict product liability claim requires the following:

(1) the Product is found to be in a defective condition that poses an unreasonable risk to the user or consumer or the consumer's property;

(2) Seller sells such products;

(3) the design defect caused plaintiff's damage; And

(4) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

Examples of defects that lead to severe product liability include: physical failure due to manufacturing defects, improper design, and inadequate warnings of product hazards.

If the product liability action is successful, the plaintiff is entitled to the actual damage incurred. In addition, punitive damages may be recovered if the circumstances are severe enough to justify it.

Claims from breach of product liability or warranty are based on the warranty provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, C.R.S. §§ 4-2-313 et seq. Examples of breaches of warranty include breach of the express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The items required by Colorado law are listed below.

Breach of Express Warranty

(1) The defendant sold the product to the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant expressly guaranteed the product to the plaintiff;

(3) the Complainant is a person who can reasonably be expected to use, consume or be influenced by the Product;

(4) the product was not expressly guaranteed;

(5) breach of warranty resulted in plaintiff's injury; And

(6) within a reasonable time after the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the breach of warranty, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the breach.

Breach of the Implied Warranty for a Particular Purpose

(1) The defendant sold the product to the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant implied that the product was suitable or appropriate for the particular purpose described by the plaintiff;

(3) the complainant is a person reasonably expected to use, consume or be affected by the item in question;

(4) the item in question was unsuitable or fit for the specific purpose for which it was guaranteed;

(5) the breach of warranty caused harm to the plaintiff; And

(6) within a reasonable time after the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the breach of warranty, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the breach.

Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability

(1) the defendant sold the product to the plaintiff;

(2) the Complainant is a person who can reasonably be expected to use, consume or be influenced by the Product;

(3) the defendant was a merchant as to the nature of the product at issue;

(4) the product was not of merchantable quality at the time of sale;

(5) the breach of warranty caused the plaintiff's damage; And

(6) within a reasonable time after the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the breach of warranty, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the breach.

Legal remedies for breaches of product liability or warranty claims are the difference in value between the value of the goods taken over and the value that the goods would have had under warranty. Incidental damages may also be recoverable and include: reasonable expenses incurred in inspecting, receiving, transporting, and maintaining and storing the non-conforming goods, commercially reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the "covering" or repair of the non-conforming goods are, and all other reasonable expenses. In addition, consequential damages for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of defective goods are recoverable, as are losses resulting from the inability to use the goods of which the seller knew or should have known.

Admission of Guilt is a doctrine of equity similar to suits for breach of contract. The doctrine was adopted to allow recovery based on someone else's representations in the absence of an enforceable contract. Under Colorado law, a plaintiff filing a claim for culpable estoppel must demonstrate the following:

(1) the promiser made a promise to the promiser;

(2) the promiser should have reasonably expected that the promise would elicit action or forbearance on the part of the promiser;

(3) the Promise actually reasonably relied on the Promise to the Promise's detriment; And

(4) The promise must be kept to avoid injustice.

It is important to note that fraud law, which requires certain contracts to be in writing, is not a defense as a culpable Estoppel claim is conditional on the absence of an enforceable contract. In fact, Estoppel tort claims are designed to ensure recovery when individuals use fraud law as a defense to repel legitimate breach of contract claims.

If a plaintiff establishes a claim for injunctive relief under the law of obligations, he is entitled to normal contractual remedies as if a contract had actually been formed. This includes economic damages, incidental damages and consequential damages resulting from the breach.

Defamation of title is a claim for damages related to disregard of an owner's title to land, property, and intangible assets. Under Colorado law, defamation of title requires:

(1) defamatory words;

(2) untruth;

(3) malice; And

(4) Special Damages.

It is important to note that title defamation is separate from personal defamation, as in all cases title defamation requires proof of specific damage, a higher level of guilt than negligence, and is geared more toward denigrating property than a person damage reputation. Examples of defamation of property include falsely recording a void contract that obscures one's title and filing a false lien on someone else's property.

Compensation for successfully proving a defamation title claim is limited to pecuniary damages arising directly from the conduct of the defendant and may include loss of property value and attorneys' fees incurred to remedy qualification issues. Colorado pleas at 33-1.

Trespassing is trespassing on someone else's property without the owner's consent. In order for a plaintiff to prove an assignment claim, Colorado law requires that the plaintiff show:

(1) intentional physical tampering with plaintiff's property;

(2) without proper authorization; And

(3) title to title by the party claiming the transfer.

It is important to note that Colorado law does not recognize different standards of care in conveyance claims, i.e. H. a plaintiff need not demonstrate any specific intent to transmit, only that the act was committed intentionally and resulted in a transfer of ownership. Examples of trespassing may include ordering grading work on another person's property without a permit, constructing a building that encroaches on another person's property, and disturbing the flow pattern of surface water.

Transfer damages include actual damages and nominal damages when there is insufficient evidence to show actual damages. Actual damages may include compensation for decreased market value, restoration costs, loss of use, and inconvenience and inconvenience to the resident. Punitive damages and damages for emotional distress may be awarded for fraud, malice or other willful and wanton conduct.

Wasting is an age-old common law act involving the unauthorized destruction or removal of an owner's improvement, tree, mineral or other property by a person who had no title but was lawfully in possession. Examples of waste typically come from mortgage and lease agreements and include the destruction or use of property by a tenant. Under Colorado law, the items for waste are:

(1) an act that constitutes waste;

(2) the actor legally owns the property; And

(3) Damage to another's financial interests.

The remedies available for a successful refuse claim include forfeiture of the property, an injunction, or monetary damages for depreciation of the property.

Wrongful deaths are lawsuits brought on behalf of a deceased person to recover those who caused the death. Specifically, a wrongful death action under Colorado law requires:

(1) the action is brought by an eligible plaintiff;

(2) the deceased's death was caused by the wrongful act, negligence or default of the accused; And

(3) the wrongful act, negligence or injury would have entitled the testator to sue and seek damages, but for death.

In essence, a wrongful death suit allows the plaintiff to follow in the footsteps of the deceased in order to recover from any injuries the deceased suffered. As a result, the damages under a wrongful death penalty are equal to what the testator could have recovered had he not died. Specifically, a successful plaintiff can claim both economic and non-economic harm suffered by the plaintiff, including punitive damages, loss of companionship, emotional distress, and loss of quality of life. Punitive damages can also be recovered if the circumstances are severe enough to justify it.

Under Colorado law, the standard rule for employer-employee relationships is that they may be terminated at will, unless expressly stated otherwise, meaning that either party may terminate employment at any time and for any reason. Despite the ability to fire an employee at will, Colorado recognizes wrongful termination claims, where an employee can sue the employer if they were fired for a reason that violates public policy. Specifically, under Colorado law, for a claim for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

(1) the employer ordered an unlawful act by the employee or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important work-related right or privilege;

(2) the act ordered by the employer would violate a specific law relating to public health, safety or welfare, or a clearly stated public policy relating to the worker's fundamental responsibilities as a citizen or the worker's rights or privileges as citizens undermine workers;

(3) the employee was dismissed for refusing to perform the act or for exercising the privilege to which the employee is entitled; And

(4) the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee's refusal to comply with the order was based on the employee's reasonable belief that the ordered act was unlawful, contrary to a clearly stated principle of law, or the employee's statutory rights injured .

An example of a successful request for wrongful dismissal is a mechanic who was fired for refusing to recommend fuel injector flushes for all vehicles under the direction of his employer when the procedure is rarely required. The mechanic was able to recover from his employer in this situation because the directed action was unlawful because it violated the Colorado Motor Vehicle Law and the Colorado Consumer Protection Law, both of which make it unlawful to state that certain repairs are necessary, though this is not the case .are. Other examples of valid wrongful termination claims include refusing to assist an employer in defrauding the government and filing a complaint with a regulatory body.

Compensation for a successful improper discharge claim includes compensatory and punitive damages where the circumstances are so egregious as to justify it. Compensatory damages include economic damages for back wages, lost future wages, lost benefits and related economic losses resulting from termination.

Unjust enrichment is a court-created remedy and claim of equity designed to reverse an advantage unfairly obtained to the detriment of another. Specifically, under Colorado, a claim for unjust enrichment requires that the plaintiff be able to demonstrate:

(1) the defendant received an advantage;

(2) the benefit was borne by the plaintiff; And

(3) the benefit was obtained in circumstances that would make it unfair for the defendant to withhold the benefit without adequate compensation for the plaintiff.

Because unjust enrichment claims are equity claims that focus only on redress, they are often asserted as alternative claims for breach of contract and related types of claims should those other claims fail. In fact, unjust enrichment claims that while the defendant does not have an official contract, the defendant has benefited at the expense of the plaintiff and it is unfair for the defendant to retain that benefit.

In particular, whether it is unfair for a defendant to withhold the benefit is an intense factual investigation for the trial court to decide, there are no specific requirements for whether a party has been unjustly enriched. See Lewis v. Lewis, 189 p.3d 1134 (col. 2008).

A civil theft lawsuit in Colorado is essentially a criminal theft lawsuit brought as a private right of action in Colorado civil courts. Specifically, the Colorado Criminal Theft Act, C.R.S. § 18-4-401 states that theft occurs when:

(1) A person acquires, refuses, or knowingly exercises control of anything of value from another without authorization or by threat or deception; or receives, lends money by lien or pledge, or disposes of anything of value or property of another that he or she knows or believes has been stolen; And

(2) intends to permanently deprive the other person of use or benefit of the thing of value;

(3) knowingly uses, conceals, or gives up the valuable in a manner that permanently deprives another person of its use or benefit;

(4) uses, conceals, or gives up the Valuable with the intention that such use, concealment, or surrender will permanently deprive another person of its use or benefit;

(5) to require consideration to which he is not legally entitled as a condition of the return of the valuable to the other; either

(6) knowingly retains the valuable for more than seventy-two hours after the return time specified in any Rental Agreement.

If criminal theft has occurred, the law provides a civil right of action, in which the aggrieved party is entitled to $200 or three times actual title to the stolen property, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees, order to file the lawsuit. See C.RS§ 18-4-405.

© 2016 JD Porter, LLC. Autor: Jordan Porter. Denver, Colorado.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Dr. Pierre Goyette

Last Updated: 02/21/2023

Views: 5772

Rating: 5 / 5 (50 voted)

Reviews: 89% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Dr. Pierre Goyette

Birthday: 1998-01-29

Address: Apt. 611 3357 Yong Plain, West Audra, IL 70053

Phone: +5819954278378

Job: Construction Director

Hobby: Embroidery, Creative writing, Shopping, Driving, Stand-up comedy, Coffee roasting, Scrapbooking

Introduction: My name is Dr. Pierre Goyette, I am a enchanting, powerful, jolly, rich, graceful, colorful, zany person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.