Andrade v. Johnson
2016 COA 147
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Emma Andrade, using a cane, slipped and fractured her leg while walking on a public sidewalk adjacent to defendant Margaret Johnson’s house in Colorado Springs.
- Andrade sued Johnson for (1) premises liability under Colorado’s premises liability statute and (2) common-law negligence.
- Andrade alleged the sidewalk was "uneven" (later described as cane stuck in a hole) and that Johnson failed to notify the City Engineer of sidewalk damage as required by Colorado Springs City Code § 3.4.103(B).
- Johnson moved for summary judgment arguing the premises-liability statute does not apply because the injury occurred on a public sidewalk (so Johnson is not a “landowner”), and that Colorado’s common-law “no duty” rule bars liability for injury on abutting public sidewalks.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the premises-liability claim but reversed as to the common-law negligence claim, holding the city code creates a civil-liability basis that displaces the common-law “no duty” rule in certain circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson is liable under the Colorado premises-liability statute (§ 13-21-115) for injuries on an abutting public sidewalk | Andrade contends Johnson is a landowner liable under the Act for failing to exercise reasonable care regarding the sidewalk hazard | Johnson argues she is not a “landowner” under the Act because the injury occurred on a public sidewalk, so the statute does not apply | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Johnson on the premises-liability claim — Johnson is not a landowner as to the public sidewalk and the Act is inapplicable |
| Whether Colorado Springs City Code § 3.4.103 imposes a civilly enforceable duty on property owners that can defeat the common-law “no duty” rule | Andrade argues § 3.4.103(B) imposes a duty to notify the City Engineer of sidewalk damage and § 3.4.103(D) expressly creates civil liability when failure to comply proximately causes injury | Johnson asserts the common-law “no duty” rule bars liability for injuries on public sidewalks and that no negligence-per-se claim was pleaded | Court: Reversed summary judgment on negligence. § 3.4.103(B) unambiguously requires owners/occupants to notify; § 3.4.103(D) imposes civil liability for injuries proximately caused by failure to comply. Remanded for factual determinations (damage existence; proximate cause) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burbach v. Canwest Inv., LLC, 224 P.3d 437 (Colo. App. 2009) (interpreting limits of premises-liability statute and Colorado’s “no duty” rule)
- Bittle v. Brunetti, 750 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1988) (articulating Colorado common-law “no duty” rule re: abutting public sidewalks)
- Easton v. 1738 Partnership, 854 P.2d 1362 (Colo. App. 1993) (ordinance imposing fines does not alone create civil liability absent express legislative intent)
- Foster v. Redd, 128 P.3d 316 (Colo. App. 2005) ("no duty" applies to sidewalks needing repair)
- Woods v. Delgar Ltd., 226 P.3d 1178 (Colo. App. 2009) (ordinance must clearly impose civil liability to overcome no-duty rule)
- Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004) (statutory deviations from common law must be clearly expressed)