Kampman v. Dunham

560 P.2d 91, 192 Colo. 448, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 705
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedFebruary 22, 1977
DocketC-907 and C-909
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 560 P.2d 91 (Kampman v. Dunham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kampman v. Dunham, 560 P.2d 91, 192 Colo. 448, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 705 (Colo. 1977).

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Donald and Georgia Dunham brought this action to recover for injuries sustained when the motorcycle, which Donald was driving and on *449 which Georgia was a passenger, collided with an automobile driven by Robert Kampman. The case was tried under the comparative negligence doctrine, and utilizing a special verdict form the jury found Kampman to be only 1% negligent while finding Donald Dunham 99% negligent. The jury also determined that Georgia Dunham had suffered damages totaling $4,000.00. The trial court concluded that Donald Dunham could recover nothing from Kampman and held that Georgia Dunham’s recovery was limited to the percentage of negligence attributable to Kampman. Thus, she was awarded $40.00, 1% of the jury award. Mrs. Dunham appealed the judgment to the court of appeals contending, among other things, that she was entitled to recover the entire award of the jury from the defendant Kampman.

In Dunham v. Kampman, 37 Colo. App. 233, 547 P.2d 263 (1976), the court of appeals, in a well reasoned opinion, correctly disposed of the contentions of the parties. The court of appeals concluded that the comparative negligence statute, section 13-21-111, C.R.S. 1973 has no application where an innocent party seeks recovery from a party adjudged negligent and that liability of joint tort-feasors remains joint and several with respect to a third party injured by their actions. It therefore reversed the trial court and ordered that Mrs. Dunham be awarded the full amount of damages determined by the jury. In all other matters raised before it, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court. We expressly approve and adopt the opinion of the court of appeals and its treatment of this case.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeBose Ex Rel. DeBose v. Bear Valley Church of Christ
890 P.2d 214 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1995)
Bowling v. Heil Co.
511 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987)
Whitlock v. University of Denver
712 P.2d 1072 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1986)
Cruz v. Union Pacific Railroad
707 P.2d 360 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1985)
Robinson v. Poudre Valley Federal Credit Union
680 P.2d 241 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1984)
Morrison v. Bradley
655 P.2d 385 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1982)
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Frackelton
645 P.2d 1321 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1981)
Miles v. West
580 P.2d 876 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1978)
Martinez v. Stefanich
577 P.2d 1099 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1978)
Hover v. Clamp
579 P.2d 1181 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1978)
Stefanich v. Martinez
570 P.2d 554 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1977)
Slifer v. Wheeler & Lewis
567 P.2d 388 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
560 P.2d 91, 192 Colo. 448, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kampman-v-dunham-colo-1977.