Legro v. Robinson
2015 WL 9584014
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Legro and Legro sue Robinsons for negligence and strict liability under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act (PLA) after predator control dogs attacked Legro on federal land.
- Robinsons hold a U.S. Forest Service grazing permit to graze sheep on White River National Forest lands; permit is central to whether the dogs were working on owner’s property.
- District court held the Robinsons were landowners under the PLA and that the dog bite statute’s working dog exemption applied, barring Legro’s strict liability claim.
- Legros appealed, challenging (a) Legro’s status under the PLA (trespasser vs licensee) and (b) whether the grazing permit gave a sufficient property interest for the working dog exemption.
- Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding: Legro was not a trespasser but a licensee as to the Robinsons, and the grazing permit did not create a property interest to trigger the working dog exemption. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
- Legros’ potential PLA claims were preserved for possible amendment on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legro’s PLA status | Legro was an invitee/licensee, not a trespasser. | Legro was a trespasser under the PLA. | Legro was a licensee, not a trespasser. |
| Grazing permit and working dog exemption | Grazing permit creates a property interest that brings the dogs under the working dog exemption. | Grazing permit confers a property interest sufficient for the exemption. | Grazing permit does not confer a property interest; working dog exemption does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Marchiondo, 124 P.3d 837 (Colo. App. 2005) (consent-based licensee/invitee distinctions in PLA status)
- Henderson v. Master Klean Janitorial, Inc., 70 P.3d 612 (Colo. App. 2003) (landowner-tenant relationships affect entry status)
- Wright v. Vail Run Resort Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 917 P.2d 364 (Colo. App. 1996) (guest of tenant as licensee with respect to owner)
- Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (Supreme Court 2000) (grazing permits and property interest implications)
- Jonas, 80 Cal. Rptr. 252 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) (grazing permits as revocable licenses creating no property interest)