Geringer V. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc.

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 10

Words: 7029

Pages: 29

Category: Business and Industry

Date Submitted: 12/11/2015 06:19 PM

Report This Essay

Page 1

706 F.Supp. 1442

(Cite as: 706 F.Supp. 1442)

Corporations and Business Organizations 101

1048

United States District Court,

D. Colorado.

Diane GERINGER, individually, and as parent and

next best friend of Tara Geringer, and as surviving

spouse of William Geringer, decedent, and mother

of Jared Geringer, decedent, Plaintiff(s),

v.

WILDHORN RANCH, INC., a Colorado Corporation, M.R. Watters and Les Bretzke, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 87–F–1213.

Dec. 14, 1988.

Widow and mother of resort guests who died in

boating accident brought action against the resort,

its owner, and others. Following jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, the District Court, Sherman G. Finesilver, Chief Judge, held that: (1) evidence warranted application of the corporate alter ego doctrine;

(2) punitive damages could be awarded against corporation which was found negligent, even though

zero percent of the negligence was attributed to it;

and (3) Colorado premises liability statute does not

apply to act of landowner in supplying chattel to an

invitee.

Ordered accordingly.

See also 706 F.Supp. 1452.

West Headnotes

[1] Corporations and Business Organizations

101

1044

101 Corporations and Business Organizations

101II Disregarding Corporate Entity; Piercing

Corporate Veil

101k1042 Factors Considered

101k1044 k. Domination or control by

shareholder. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 101k1.4(4))

101 Corporations and Business Organizations

101II Disregarding Corporate Entity; Piercing

Corporate Veil

101k1042 Factors Considered

101k1048 k. Non-observance of corporate

formalities. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 101k1.4(4))

Theory of corporate alter ego requires plaintiff

to show that an individual consistently disregarded

the formalities of the corporate form and so dominated the affairs of the corporation, in a manner

which injured the plaintiff, that to acknowledge the

legal fiction of the corporation would promote injustice and harm public convenience.

[2]...