CASE BRIEF

Case Brief



Case Brief

Case name

Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. 706 F.Supp. 1442 D.Colo. 1988. December 14, 1988

Procedural History

The case came in front of the court on action of defendants for decision against the verdict, for fresh trial pursuant based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's Rule 59, and for revised decision. The judges revisited a ruling on 28th September 1988, against defendants, as a result of the injuries which took place at Wildhorn Ranch Resort in a boating accident. Keeping in view many of issues which were raised in the post-trial actions of the defendants, before and during the trial, court made a revised decision. Moreover, the court also reviewed the actions of the defendants both individually and collectively, based on which it concluded that there is no need of neither a new nor an amended judgment of the trial against the verdict (Pollack, 2011).

Facts

M.R. Watters (defendant) was the owner of the resort originally; however, Mr. Watters claimed that the ownership was handed over to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. Claim also included the current t work status of Mr. Watters as a management consultant to the time-share department of the association of homeowners. The three members of the Board of Directors of the company owned it initially; these three people included M.R. Watters, wife Doris and son Davis. Les Bretzke, the other defendant, was an individual contractor having an independent company providing repair construction and repair services to the association of the homeowners and the Resort. At the trial, the evidences showed that Mr. Bretzke has a major role in the operations of the Resort, because of participation in controlling the employees of the resort and involvement in management meetings. Bretzke was also involved in managing boat repairs for the resort.

However, the role of Mr. Watters was even more significant than Mr. Bretzke, and that was inspection of boats in order to identify whether they are fit to be launched in the water again or not? A resort employee had the responsibility to repair boats with a ranch-hand's assistance. A firm which was employed on contract in the resort for horse riding facilities employed this ranch-hand for the resort. The Plaintiff maintains that, Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. is the alter ego of Mr. Watters (the defendant, This implies that the parties should not be treated separately; rather they should be treated as a single entity under the provisions of the law, ...