N.M. Ex Rel. Lopez v. Trujillo

Citations

• 2017 CO 79
• 397 P.3d 370
• 2017 WL 2729858
• 2017 Colo. LEXIS 557

Syllabus

This case required the Supreme Court to determine whether respondent, a dog owner, owed a duty of care to petitioner, a child who became frightened when respondent's dogs rushed at respondent's front yard fence and who, although not touched by the fenced-in dogs, ran into the street and was struck and injured by a passing van. Because petitioner's negligence claim against respondent was predicated on alleged nonfeasance, or failure to act, and because the case is distinguishable from cases in which a dangerous or vicious animal attacks and directly injures someone, petitioner was required to plead a special relationship between himself and respondent to establish the duty of care necessary to support his negligence claim. Petitioner did not, however, plead such a special relationship. Accordingly, the Court concluded that, as a matter of law, respondent owed no duty of care to petitioner and thus the district court properly dismissed petitioner's negligence claim against respondent. The Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed.