... shall not include participation in a ridesharing arrangement, as defined in section 10-4-707.5, C.R.S.’ ” This amendment effectively modifies the travel reimbursement rule by eliminating its potential application to the reimbursed employee who commutes to work in a car pool. In plaintiffs workmen’s compensation case, the parties stipulated that plaintiff was ridesharing with Pinner at the time of the accident. See Loffland Brothers, 714 P.2d at 510. Indeed, this was one of the reasons cited by the court of appeals for denying benefits in that ease. Id. Since both plaintiff and Loffland were also parties to that prior litigation, plaintiff cannot herein deny the existence of his ride-sharing arrangement with Pinner. See Otte v. Pierce, 111 Colo. 386, 142 P.2d 280, 282 (1943) (<HOLDING>). Accord Reno v. Beckett, 555 F.2d 757, 770
holding that defendant would derive an unfair advantage by taking a factual position inconsistent with one taken in an earlier action in which defendant prevailed recognizing principle that as between common parties a position taken in an earlier judicial proceeding estops a litigant from adopting an inconsistent position in a later proceeding holding governments position unreasonable where government advanced no legal authority for its position and applicable principle of law was long settled holding that estoppel prevents a party who secured a judgment in his favor by virtue of assuming a given position in a prior legal proceeding from assuming an inconsistent position in a later action holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding