Dennis v. City and County of Denver
2016 COA 140
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 20, 2013, Doreen Heyboer (passenger) suffered catastrophic brain injuries when the motorcycle she rode on struck a car that suddenly turned left; the rider braked but could not stop.
- Heyboer sued the City and County of Denver alleging negligent maintenance of the roadway at Mississippi Ave. & Broadway — claiming deteriorated pavement physically interfered with traffic and impaired braking.
- At a pretrial Trinity hearing under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), the City conceded knowledge of the road’s poor condition, that the intersection’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was “very poor,” and that the road posed a public safety risk, but asserted it was not an "unreasonable risk" and claimed immunity under the CGIA.
- Expert testimony (plaintiff’s reconstructionist and City witnesses) and photographs showed ruts, cracks, and non-uniform tire contact; plaintiff’s expert opined the uneven surface affected braking and caused the collision.
- The district court found no evidence of an "unreasonable risk" and granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the record supported a finding the City failed to maintain the road to its original state and thus waived immunity under the CGIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff met the jurisdictional burden at a Trinity hearing to show an "unreasonable risk to the health or safety of the public" under § 24-10-103(1.3) | Heyboer argued the evidence (PCI, 311 calls, expert testimony, photos) shows the City failed to maintain the road to its original state, creating an unreasonable risk and waiving immunity | City argued no evidence or expert opinion established the road posed an "unreasonable risk"; the crash was caused by the car driver’s illegal left turn, not road condition | Held for Heyboer: the court clearly erred; record shows failure to maintain and an unreasonable risk, so immunity was waived |
| What standard governs a Trinity hearing on immunity (burden of proof/inferences) | Tidwell supports a lenient standard: plaintiff need only show a minimal causal connection and be afforded reasonable inferences | City argued preponderance standard applies and Tidwell is inapplicable | Held: Trinity/C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) procedures apply with a "relatively lenient" burden per Tidwell; preponderance is for merits trial |
| How to interpret "unreasonable risk to the health or safety of the public" in § 24-10-103(1.3) | Argues "unreasonable risk" includes failure to restore a road to the same general state of repair or efficiency as initially constructed (maintenance failure) | City argued statutory language requires more — an explicit opinion or specific proof of unreasonableness beyond condition evidence | Held: "Unreasonable risk" is shown when a public entity fails to restore a damaged road to its same general state of repair or efficiency, combined with knowledge and interference with traffic |
| Whether the road condition interfered with movement of traffic (CGIA waiver element) | Plaintiff relied on expert testimony that uneven pavement impeded braking and photos showing deterioration | City’s experts downplayed the road’s role and focused on driver fault | Held: Trial court’s factual findings show the condition physically interfered with traffic; this element is satisfied and waiver applies; causation among factors reserved for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993) (establishes that CGIA immunity is jurisdictional and Trinity hearing procedures under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1))
- Tidwell ex rel. Tidwell v. City & County of Denver, 83 P.3d 75 (Colo. 2003) (plaintiff’s burden at a Trinity hearing is relatively lenient; allow reasonable inferences and minimal causal connection)
- Finnie v. Jefferson County School Dist. R-1, 79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 2003) (district courts must resolve immunity issues pretrial; summary-judgment procedures are not the appropriate substitute)
- Springer v. City & County of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000) (elements required to prove a "dangerous condition" and rationale for waiver where government can discover and correct hazards)
- Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo. 1998) (interpretation principles: narrowly construe immunity, broadly construe waivers)
- Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001) (failure to maintain can increase risk above that acceptable at design stage and support waiver)
- Bloomer v. Board of County Commissioners, 799 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1990) (clarifies statutory phrasing that waiver requires a dangerous condition that interferes with movement of traffic)