Anytime that a court is discussing a finding of fact, it cannot simply rely on stare decisis, but must examine whether the factual situation has remained the same since announcing the first rule. For example, the Smithville crossing could be extremely hazardous in rainy May weather, but not hazardous in dry December weather. In addition, the Regional Transit Authority may have placed appropriate warnings or safety devices, which would have changed the nature of the crossing. Therefore, the court may not accept the conclusion announced in the Walters case. However, if the factual conditions did not change between the two accidents, the court should recognize its own precedent and follow the Walters decision. 7. When a court makes its decision effective as precedent at a date in the future of its decision, it generally does so that a party may remedy the circumstances...

This is especially useful when the decision marks some type of doctrinal change. The decision in question abolished governmental immunity for the state of Colorado. This change in the law marked a dramatic departure from prior law. Making the decision immediately applicable would have placed the state of Colorado in an untenable position, because it would have been immediately liable for things for which it had previously been able to claim immunity. Giving the state a period of time before the attachment of liability would have allowed the state to make some necessary changes. For example, the 15-month period would give the state time to change dangerous physical conditions. In addition, the 15-month period would allow the state time to change policies and procedures, so that people could seek compensation with resorting…