GENERAL30353

• Permit No: C1981022
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 8/21/1991
• From: DUFFORD WALDECK MILBURN & KROHN
• To: MRD
• Permit Index Doc Type: PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~.
~~
i;
,t
~:
1068 Cob. T52 PACIFIC REPORTEIiti 2d SERIES
ed in an exploaioo subataaually destroying
ao aparmient building. In ruling fiat the
plaintiff could not be aeeoeded relief under
the theon' of nuisance based on negligent
tttavttenance, the Supreme Court held that
actual or eonswetive knowledge a an es-
sential ingredient of liabiiitc. That ingredi-
ent was lacking in Baughman, as the aban-
doned line was underground. and the ser-
vice lines running from )t were also hidden
from view.
l2l Here, the situation is different
From the inception of his business, the
defendant was operated a car wash imme-
diately adjacent to residences. Large die-
sel wcks used an oversized bav on a 26-
hour basis, during which time the engines
would idle for periods of time of one hour
or more and would emit obnoxious fumes.
Furthermore, noise problems from passen•
get ears whose radios would be operated
loudh• while m the drying area adjacent to
plaintiffs' property were frequently en-
countered. Thus, long prior to the plain-
tiffs' complaining to defendant, it was ap-
parent that there were adverse eftecu to
adjacent property. The court did not err in
awarding damages for the period prior to
pisintiffs' complaining of the situation.
Contrary to defendant's argument, there
was no reversible error in the amount of
the damages awarded. Under the evidence
presented, there are reasonable inferences
that support the judgment entered. Sec
Xpman & Co. v. Velsieol Corp., 128 Colo.
563, 233 P.2d 977 (1951).
The judgment is affirmed
!n ro the MARRIAGE OF Lvnn Marie
JARMAN, Appellant,
and
li.enneth Ray Jarman, Appellee.
Fo. 86CAU626.
Colorado Court of Appeals,
Div. 1.
Feb. 11, 1988,
Mother appealed from order of the Dis-
trict Court, Cig• and County of Denver,
Gilbert A. Alexander, J., which reduced her
visitation and ordered that she pav child
support. The Coun of Appeals, Pierce, J.,
held that: (1) instability of mother's envi•
ronment was not sufficient cause for re-
striction on visitation, and (2) evidence did
not support award of child support to fa•
they.
Reversed and remanded.
1. Parent and Child ~2t17)
Even a parent who is unfit to be the
custodial parent may be entitled to liberal
visitation righu. C.R.S. 16-]0-129,
2. Infants x19.3(4)
While stabiliri• of environment is a va]•
id consideration in awarding custody, insta•
bilin• alone is not sufficient w support a
restriction on visitation. C.R.S. 14-1U-17~i
(1.5).
VAN CISE and JONES, JJ., concur.
M
O Stn ~n~an PnlM
T
3. Divorce X303(2)
In the absence of finding that instabili•
tp of mother was so severe that it would
endanger the child physically or impair his
emotional development, order restricting
her visitation on ground of instabibty was
improper. C.R.S. 14-111-124(1.5).
4. Parent and Child ~3S(8)
In derP....• ~yg if a support decree's
provisions have become unconscionable,
`~j[/~Itl/11'vt.~..t/