dissenting.
I would affirm the court of appeals’ ruling in this case that there was no duty on McClintic to pull over to the right shoulder when she slowed for bighorn sheep on the highway. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
I. Defining the Legal Duty
In this ease, the majority correctly recognizes that this court must begin its comparative negligence analysis by asking whether McClintic owed a duty to Hesse. Maj. op. at 762. However, I believe that the majority ignores precedent by assuming without explanation that if McClintic owed any duty to Hesse, that duty is an ordinary duty of care. Instead, I would analyze whether the duty at issue is a broad duty of care, or a more narrow duty to pull to the shoulder under the circumstances. Only after defining the scope of duty at issue would I determine whether McClintic owed that duty to Hesse.
In this case, I would hold that precedent requires us to define the duty more narrowly than the ordinary duty of care. In a long line of cases, Colorado courts have tailored the scope of the legal duty to the case at hand. For instance, in Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, the plaintiff was shot by a robber on defendant Taco Bell’s premises. 744 P.2d 43, 43 (Colo.1987). This court recognized that there was a general duty by a landowner to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to *766make the owner’s premises safe. Id. at 46 (citing Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith, 658 P.2d 255 (Colo.1983)). Rather than apply that general duty of care, however, we looked to whether a more specific duty existed to take certain security measures to protect business patrons from injuries caused by the criminal acts of unknown third persons. Id. We determined that the more specific duty existed, and therefore the question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury. Id. at 51.
Similarly, this court has held that, encompassed within a manufacturer’s duty to use reasonable care in the design and manufacture of its product, there is a duty to minimize the injurious effects of a foreseeable collision by employing commonsense safety features. Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1243-44 (Colo.1987) (applying the “crashworthiness doctrine” to motorcycle manufacturers). In addition, in some negligent supervision cases, we have limited the scope of ordinary care to a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm of a known risk. Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445, 449 (Colo.2005) (citing Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275 (Colo.1988); Fletcher v. Baltimore & P.R. Co., 168 U.S. 135, 18 S.Ct. 35, 42 L.Ed. 411 (1897)).
Last, I note that this court has rejected the uniform application of the ordinary duty of care in vehicle cases. See Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Bradfield, 193 Colo. 151, 156, 563 P.2d 939, 943 (1977) (stating that vehicle drivers do not owe a duty of care to every driver and pedestrian); but see Curtis v. Lawley, 140 Colo. 476, 480, 346 P.2d 579, 581 (1959) (applying general duty of care in vehicle collision ease). If this court were to apply the general duty of care to all cases involving allegedly negligent vehicle drivers, courts would have to hold uniformly that the driver owed a duty of care to whomever he encountered, regardless of whether that encounter was foreseeable. This court has previously rejected this outcome. See Ringsby, 193 Colo, at 156, 563 P.2d at 943. In Rings-by Truck Lines, Inc. v. Bradfield, we quoted William Prosser as saying that when an automobile driver, as a reasonable person, should “foresee that his conduct will involve an unreasonable risk of harm to other drivers or to pedestrians, he is then under a duty to them.... There are, however, a good many defendants, and a good many situations, as to which there is no such duty.” Id. (quoting W. Prosser, Torts § 53 at 326 (4th ed.1971)) (alteration in original).
Indeed, this court has previously applied a narrower duty of care in vehicle cases. Ringsby is similar to the case at hand. Id. at 151, 563 P.2d 939. In Ringsby, as here, the defendant and plaintiff were involved in a vehicle collision in which the defendant had acted negligently. Id. at 153-54, 563 P.2d at 941. The defendant drove in a lane that had been temporarily designated for oncoming traffic, and his negligence resulted in a collision with the plaintiffs oncoming vehicle. Id. In both Ringsby and the case at hand, the defendant argued that the jury should decide whether the plaintiffs negligence had contributed to the crash. See id. at 154, 563 P.2d at 941. The Ringsby defendant claimed that the plaintiff had been “insufficiently cautious” and thus was contributorily negligent. Id. The defendant therefore argued that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the question of the plaintiffs contributory negligence. Id. We disagreed, holding in Ringsby that the trial court did not err in withdrawing the contributory negligence issue from the jury. Id. at 155, 563 P.2d at 942.
Our determination in Ringsby that the jury should not decide the question of breach centered around a narrow concept of duty. We noted that the plaintiff “did all he was legally required to do” to avoid the collision. Id. at 154, 563 P.2d at 942. We also noted that the plaintiff “was not required to drive his vehicle into the ditch.” Id. Essentially, we defined the duty that the plaintiff owed toward the defendant by looking to the particular circumstances of the case rather than by applying a uniform standard of ordinary care. The question of contributory negligence was properly withheld from the jury because the plaintiff did not owe a duty to the defendant under the circumstances.
Therefore, in keeping with the lessons of Taco Bell and Ringsby, I would find that the particular and unusual circumstances of this *767case compel this court to tailor the scope of the legal duty, and to reject the application of a uniform standard of ordinary care. In Taco Bell, we looked to whether certain security measures were necessary by virtue of the restaurant’s unusually violent immediate history. 744 P.2d at 44 (noting that ten armed robberies had taken place there in the past three years). Similarly, in Ringsby, we held that the scope of the duty of due care does not require a driver to drive his car into a ditch in an effort to avoid traffic when encountering atypical traffic conditions. 193 Colo, at 154, 563 P.2d at 942. In this ease, I would similarly tailor the duty to the unusual circumstances in which the plaintiff found herself; here, the plaintiff encountered bighorn sheep ahead of her in her lane of the highway, she was unable to change lanes because of traffic to her left, and she determined that there was no traffic behind her.
Accordingly, I would determine that it would be inappropriate to analyze solely whether McClintic owed a duty to operate her vehicle with due care. Instead, I would ask whether, encompassed within that duty to act with due care, a driver has a duty to pull to the shoulder of the highway when she confronts animals on the road.1
II. McClintic Did Not Owe Hesse a Duty to Pull to the Shoulder
Having determined the precise duty involved, I would next turn to the question of whether McClintic owed Hesse that duty. The question of whether a duty is owed is essentially one of fairness. Taco Bell, 744 P.2d at 46. In order to determine whether it would be fair to impose a duty on McClintic to pull to the shoulder, I would look to the duties imposed by Colorado statutes and by the factors enumerated in Taco Bell.
In this spirit, then, I would first look to the Colorado motor vehicle statutes. I would ask whether the state has imposed a duty on drivers who are confronted by adverse traffic conditions to pull to the side of the road. Our statute provides that “[n]o person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation of such vehicle or in compliance with law.” § 42-4-1103(1), C.E.S. (2007). In addition, our statute provides that:
[I]f any person drives a motor vehicle ... at a speed less than the normal and reasonable speed of traffic under the conditions then and there existing and by so driving at such slower speed impedes or retards the normal and reasonable movement of vehicular traffic following immediately' behind, then such driver shall ... [p]ull off the roadway at the first available place where such movement can safely and lawfully be made until such impeded traffic has passed by.
§ 42-4-1103(3)(b), C.R.S. (2007).
In this case, McClintic reduced her speed to avoid hitting the bighorn sheep. Reducing her speed in such a manner was necessary for the safe operation of her vehicle under section 42-4-1103(3)(b) and complied with her statutory duty. In addition, because there were no vehicles immediately behind her when she decelerated, McClintic did not “impede or retard the normal and reasonable movement of vehicular traffic following immediately behind” her, and thus she was under no statutory obligation “to pull off the roadway at the first available place” under subsection (3)(b). In short, McClintic, having slowed to a speed that was reasonable for the conditions in which she found herself, was under no statutory duty to pull to the side of the road. Thus, I agree with the court of appeals and the majority that the Colorado traffic laws imposed no duty on McClintic to pull to the side of the road rather than to decelerate. See McClintic v. Hesse, 151 P.3d 611, 614 (Colo.App.2006); maj. op. at 763, n. 5.
Next, I would look to the factors discussed in Taco Bell to assess whether McClintic owed a duty to Hesse to pull to the side of *768the road. See 744 P.2d at 46. In Colorado, to determine whether a duty was owed, we balance the risk involved, the foreseeability of the injury weighed against the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury or harm, and the consequences of placing the burden on the actor. Id. “No one factor is controlling, and the question of whether a duty should be imposed in a particular case is essentially one of fairness under contemporary standards — whether reasonable persons would recognize a duty and agree that it exists.” Id.
First, by slowing down to avoid hitting the sheep, McClintie did not take an unreasonable risk. As the court of appeals noted, McClintie “saw a truck on her left side and sheep positioned ahead on the right shoulder, but no cars behind her. Thus, the only open space on the roadway was directly behind her.” Hesse, 151 P.3d at 614. She had no reason to anticipate that another vehicle would suddenly come up behind her from the left lane. The risk involved in taking advantage of the road behind her was minimal. Second, the harm that occurred was neither foreseeable nor likely. It was not foreseeable that a ear in the left lane would choose that moment to change lanes without first checking to be sure that the right lane was safe. Third, I concede that pulling over to the shoulder would not constitute a hefty burden on a driver. To pull to the shoulder would be inconvenient, but it could hardly be considered burdensome. Last, there could be significant consequences if this court were to impose a duty on drivers to pull to the shoulder upon encountering an obstruction.2 Every situation in which a driver is confronted with animals on the road is unique. Pulling to the shoulder will sometimes be the best decision under the circumstances, but other times, the safest course of action will be to stay on the road. If we were to impose a duty to pull to the shoulder in this ease, the precedential effect could place other drivers in legal jeopardy for reasonably choosing to remain on the road under similar circumstances.
In sum, McClintic’s actions did not create a great risk of harm, it was not foreseeable that a collision would result when she cautiously slowed for the sheep rather than pulling to the shoulder, and there may be significant consequences of imposing a duty to pull to the side of the road. Thus, I would hold that these factors establish that it would be unfair to impose on McClintie a duty to pull to the side of the road.
Based on my analysis of Colorado statutes and the Taco Bell factors, I would hold as a matter of law that the duty of due care imposed on all drivers does not encompass the duty to pull to the shoulder when confronted with animals on the road. Because McClintie did not, as a matter of law, violate any duty she owed to Hesse, I would hold that the court of appeals did not err in holding that the evidence could not support a theory of comparative negligence against her.
III. Conclusion
I would hold that McClintie was under no duty to pull to the shoulder when she encountered animals on the road. Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
I am authorized to say that Justice HOBBS and Justice BENDER join in this dissent.
. We note that, during the trial, this is the duty that Hesse argued that McClintic owed: "If you're going to have to stop, the first thing you should do is pull off the road onto the shoulder, and especially if you're on a highway when people are coming up behind you at 60 to 65 miles an hour. It's the only prudent thing to do"
. In discussing the consequences of imposing a duty, we must consider the precedential effect of our decision. Lannon v. Taco Bell, Inc., 708 P.2d 1370, 1375 (Colo.App.1985) (Smith, J„ concurring in part and dissenting in part), affd, 744 P.2d 43 ("[T]he court must consider the consequences and effect that imposing such specific means of fulfilling the duty would have upon society and the individual involved. These considerations cannot, because of our system of precedential law, be limited solely to the case at bar; rather, they are policy decisions with far reaching implications.").