GENERAL30353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i~ i _~ . , 3. $ •- 1 ~'' 1 't a , ~... -1 =..-"i i t 7 ~f -( ., :- ---~ ~i _=1 =: a _; LowDER .. TIAIA MARIE HOMES, trrc. Colo. 657 tti. r arwer. r~ r.as an The judgment ie reversed and the Huse is remanded for a cew trial comutent with the rulings expressed herein. VAN CISE and STERNBERG, JJ., con- au. w c ~ mwuutmis Richard and Peggy LOWDER, Husband and Wife, P4intiHs-Appellees, L Nuisance asd9(I) In a private nuisance action, phuntiff moat establish that defendant unrraaonably interfered with use and ertjoymeot of hie Property; additionally. the interference which oceure moat be suhetantial in nature in that it would be offetuive or Huse incon- venience or annoyance to a reasonable per- eoa in the community. 2 Nuisance dl Liability for nuisance may twt upon anyone of three types of conduct: as inten- tional invasion of a person's interest; a negligent invasion of a person's inter.at; or conduct so dangerous to life or property and so abnormal or outof-plane in its surround- ings as W fall within prindplr of strict liability. .. TINA MARIE HOMES, INC., • Colorado Corporation Defendant-Appellant No. 78-437. Colorado Court of AppesU, Div. III. Sept IS, 1979. Private nuisance action was brought by adjoining property owner agaimt owner of a vacant lot The District Court, Boulder County, Murtay Riehtel, J., entered judg- ment in favor of plaintiffs and appeal wen taken. The Court of Appeals, Kelly, J., held that: (I) Tending that the depositing high drifts of dirt upon property adjoining vaunt lot after series of heavy windstorms was a forrstwable consequence of vaunt lot owner's intentional soaping of his property, which left the soil in a loose and sandy condition, was not etroocoue; thus, imposi- tion of liability for privets nuisance, which was based on negligence theory arising out of failure W take precautions against a risk apparent W a reasomble person, wen prop v, and (2) trial court did sot err in taking judicial notice of wind velocity in Boulder County during time period in queatioa. Affirmed. 3. Nuwnee b55 Ftinding that the depositing of high drifts of dirt upon property adjoining va- unt lot after cerise of hnvy windstorms way a foreseeable consequence of vamt lot owner's intentional scraping of his property, which left. the soil in a loose and Bandy condition, was not erroneous; thus, imposi- tion of liability for private nuisance, whirb way based on negligence theory arising out of failure W take prenutiom against a risk apparent to a reasonable person, wen prop- er. d. Appeal and Error 41008.1(5) Trial court's findings of feet will not be disturbed on review unless manifestly erro- neous. i Evidence b5(1) Trial court may take judicial notice of facts within common knowledge of an ia- tercied public & Evidence ash Climawloginl condition are an appro- priate subject for judicial notice. 7. Evidence ash In private auimnce action against own- er of vsnnt lot based oa theory that high drifts of dirt deposited oa adjoining propv- ty after caries of heavy windstorms wee a foreseeable consequence of ownv'e leveling of hie lot in each a manner that the soil was left in a loose and sandy condition, trial