![Vick v. Zumwalt](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Vick v. Zumwalt](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Vick v. Zumwalt
273 P.2D 1010, 130 COLO. 148, 1954.CO.40076
-
- CHF 1.00
-
- CHF 1.00
Beschreibung des Verlags
Plaintiffs sought recovery against David based on his alleged "negligence consisting of a wilful and wanton disregard of the rights" of the injured guests, and sought recovery against M. M. Vick on the "family car doctrine." It is admitted that M. M. Vick did not know that his son was driving the car on February 16, 1952.