Justice Rice on Negligence
From Judgepedia
In a 4-3 decision, Justice Rice dissented, along with Justices Mullarkey and Hobbs, against the majority opinion, written by Justice Eid, that the issue of whether the plaintiff driver was negligent, so as to result in a reduction in her damages award, was an issue that should have been submitted to the jury, where evidence was presented that she may, herself, have exhibited a lack of reasonable care, and thus her damages award should have been reduced accordingly. Underlying this case were disputes over (1) whether the conduct of civil plaintiffs should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as that of the defendant, and (2) to what extent judges should defer to a jury of Colorado citizens in determining negligence generally, and more specifically, the comparative negligence of a plaintiff.
* ON LIMITING THE ROLE OF THE JURY / EXPANDING THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE:"The majority held that "a driver is under a duty to drive with reasonable care," and where a defendant presents evidence that a plaintiff may have driven or otherwise acted unreasonably, the question of whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent should be submitted to the jury. The majority reasoned that "[W]hether there was an emergency and whether the course of conduct chosen under the circumstances was reasonable are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact."
* ON PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS V. DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS:"The dissent would have prohibited the jury from hearing evidence of the plaintiff's potential negligence in causing the accident that formed the basis of the lawsuit. The majority, on the other hand, found such analysis to be factual in nature, and thus to reside within the domain of the jury. Accordingly, the majority opinion focuses more on the possibility that the jury could have made a finding that the plaintiff herself was not entirely free from damages, and could have been found comparatively negligent."
* ON PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS V. DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS:"The dissent would have held that, in determining whether to turn the issue of the plaintiff's comparative negligence over to the jury, the plaintiff owed only a "narrow duty of care" to the defendant, rather than "a broad duty of care," or even "an ordinary duty of care."
Justice Rice sided with the majority opinion, written by Justice Hobbs (with partial dissent by Justice Mullarkey), which affirmed the appellate court ruling and held that an employer wasn't responsible for the damages caused by an employee when not acting within the scope of his employment.
The plaintiffs brought suit against Performance Plumbing and Heating, Inc. for damages they incurred in an automobile accident caused by Cory Weese, a Performance Plumbing employee driving his own truck on the way home from work. The trial court found that Weese was not acting within the scope of his employment for Performance Plumbing when he caused injury to the Raleighs. Nevertheless, the jury awarded damages against Performance Plumbing for negligently hiring Weese. At the time of his hire, Weese stated that he had a valid license and no moving violations, although his license was then under suspension. Since Performance Plumbing was not assigning Weese a company vehicle, they did no further investigation into Weese.
The appeals court invalidated the jury's negligent hiring award in light of its finding that Weese was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling, as Hobbs explained:The job required employees to commute to and from work on their own time. In this regard, this company is no different from any large number of Colorado employers who expect their employees to get to work on their own time and in their own way, and do not assume liability as part of their hiring decision to act as a surety for automobile accidents their employees may cause when commuting to and from work.[1]
