2012 COA 152
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Henderson sues the City for injuries from a collision with a city street sweeper.
- Plaintiff argues the street sweeper is a "motor vehicle" under CGIA, waiving immunity.
- City moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), contending the sweeper is mobile machinery, not a motor vehicle.
- Trial court initially held sweeper is a motor vehicle, then on remand after Trinity hearing found it was a motor vehicle.
- Court of Appeals remanded for limited discovery and a Trinity hearing; on remand the Trinity record established the sweeper is mobile machinery.
- Trial court on remand again held the sweeper is a motor vehicle; city appeals again.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the street sweeper a motor vehicle under CGIA? | Henderson contends the sweeper is a motor vehicle per §42-1-102(58). | City argues the sweeper is mobile machinery and not design/used as a motor vehicle. | No; the sweeper is mobile machinery, not a motor vehicle. |
| Does 2007 CGIA amendment affect the motor vehicle vs. mobile machinery analysis? | Henderson seeks application of the amended definitions to waive immunity. | City argues the amendment clarifies definitions in favor of mobile machinery. | Amended definitions control; mobile machinery not a motor vehicle for CGIA purposes. |
| What is the proper focus (design vs. use) in this analysis? | Focus on actual use at the time of the accident to determine motor vehicle status. | Focus on design and common use to transport persons/cargo. | The analysis centers on design and common use; the street sweeper is not primarily designed to transport persons or cargo. |
| Should immunity be waived given the Trinity hearing record? | Record suggested the sweeper fits motor vehicle criteria. | Record shows it does not satisfy motor vehicle definition. | Based on Trinity hearing record, immunity not waived. |
| What attorney fees are appropriate on dismissal under CGIA? | City seeks fees only if immunity resolved in city’s favor. | Fees are mandatory when CGIA dismissal occurs and on appeal. | Award of reasonable attorney fees to the city; remand to determine amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 221 P.3d 423 (Colo. App. 2009) (discusses 2007 CGIA amendment and motor vehicle definition)
- Bertrand v. Bd. of County Comm'rs (Bertrand II), 872 P.2d 228 (Colo. 1994) (overrules Bain/defines motor vehicle via dictionary, then remands)
- Bain v. Town of Avon, 820 P.2d 1133 (Colo. App. 1991) (backhoe not a motor vehicle; mobile machinery)
- Williams v. State, 874 P.2d 465 (Colo. App. 1993) (snowplow/dump truck classification; time-of-use focus)
- Williams v. State, 879 P.2d 490 (Colo. App. 1994) (Williams II; dump truck with snowplow status under motor vehicle analysis)
- Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1998) (formally defines Trinity hearing procedure)
- Crandall v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 238 P.3d 659 (Colo. 2010) (CGIA procedure; attorney fees when dismissal occurs)