2012 COA 208
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Vista constructed two road medians on Wellington Avenue for the City and controlled traffic during construction.
- Vista completed work on July 19, 2007 and was authorized to leave the site; it removed traffic control devices afterward.
- The City did not place traffic controls or repaint the center line for about five days after completion, leaving a hazard with the center line feeding into the medians.
- Collard collided with the medians and was injured on July 24, 2007; the accident occurred before the City installed new safety devices and warnings.
- The City was dismissed due to governmental immunity; Collard sued Vista under the Premises Liability Act (PLA) and for common law negligence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Vista on both PLA and common-law negligence, then denied reconsideration; Collard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Vista a landowner under the PLA? | Vista was legally responsible for the dangerous condition it created. | City retained control and Vista had surrendered control; Vista not a landowner. | Vista not a landowner; PLA claim upheld for dismissal. |
| Did Vista owe a common law duty after completing its work? | Contractors have a duty to leave sites safe for subsequent users and to warn of hazards post-completion. | No duty after completion and acceptance; City assumed control and safety duties. | Duty exists under a foreseeability-based rule; summary judgment reversed and remanded. |
| Was Collard's appeal timely concerning the PLA issue? | The PLA issue was timely via theRule on reconsideration. | The PLA issue appeal was untimely unless reset by reconsideration order. | Appeal timely; reconsideration tolled the time for the entire judgment. |
| Should the district court’s cost award be maintained? | Costs should be reconsidered if summary judgment on the common law claim is reversed. | Costs were proper as to the unresolved issues. | Costs vacated and remanded for reconsideration after proceedings on the duty issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Construction Co. v. Richardson, 176 Colo. 254 (Colo. 1971) (recognizes contractor duty while actively engaged on a project)
- Lindauer v. LDB Drainlaying, Inc., 38 Colo.App. 266 (Colo.App. 1976) (owner's responsibility after acceptance discussed)
- Driscoll v. Columbia Realty-Woodland Park Co., 41 Colo.App. 453 (Colo.App. 1978) (rejected the completed and accepted rule in Colorado context)
- Wright v. Creative Corp., 30 Colo.App. 575 (Colo.App. 1972) (held completed work can create liability for post-completion injuries)
- Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983) (contractor standards and duties for post-construction injuries)
- Land-Wells v. Rain Way Sprinkler and Landscape, LLC, 187 P.3d 1152 (Colo. App. 2008) (duty to consider existing drainage systems to prevent injury)
- Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 923 P.2d 208 (Colo. App. 1995) (duty to warn of dangerous conditions created by design/construction)
- Ryder v. Mitchell, 54 P.3d 885 (Colo. 2002) (duty factors: foreseeability, social utility, burden, consequences)