Vikell Investors Pacific, Inc. v. Hampden, Ltd.
Colorado Court of Appeals
946 P.2d 589 (1997)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Hampden Ltd. (defendant) operated a car dealership on a piece of land it owned at the bottom of a hill. Hampden wanted to expand the parking lot on the property and employed an engineering consultant to determine whether the necessary excavation could be done safely. The engineer found that there was some risk of subsidence on the hill but gave Hampden a detailed plan for moving forward with the project. Hampden completed the excavation and had thousands of cubic yards of soil removed from the base of the hill in the process. Vikell Investors Pacific Inc. (Vikell) (plaintiff) purchased a rundown apartment complex that was located on an uphill property above Hampden’s property. A number of the buildings had foundation cracks and other ongoing issues that indicated subsidence of the hill was occurring. After a number of years of trying to address the problems, Vikell was told by a soil expert that Hampden’s removal of soil from the bottom of the hill had contributed to the slope subsidence. Vikell eventually had to abandon and tear down two of the apartment buildings in the complex because of the increasing instability of the land. Vikell sued Hampden for being strictly and vicariously liable for the subsidence on its land. The lower court found that Hampden was not liable. Vikell appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davidson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.