Henisse v. First Transit, Inc.
247 P.3d 577
Colo.2011Background
- Henisse was injured when her car was struck by an RTD bus driven by Cotton.
- Cotton was an employee of First Transit, a private company that contracted with RTD to provide bus drivers.
- Henisse sued Cotton for negligence and First Transit for respondeat superior liability.
- The trial court granted a determination that Cotton and First Transit were subject to the CGIA cap, treating Cotton as a RTD employee with CGIA immunity.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Cotton was a common law employee of RTD and thus a 'public employee' under CGIA and First Transit liable within the cap.
- The Colorado Supreme Court held Cotton was not a 'public employee' under CGIA because he was an employee of an independent contractor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cotton was a 'public employee' under CGIA | Cotton should be public employee due to RTD control. | Cotton, as First Transit employee, is not a public employee. | Cotton not a public employee. |
| Effect of independent contractor status on CGIA immunity | Alleged RTD employee should receive CGIA immunity. | Independent contractors cannot grant CGIA immunity to their employees. | Independent contractor status excludes CGIA immunity. |
| Impact of CGIA cap on First Transit under respondeat superior | First Transit should share the cap under vicarious liability. | If Cotton isn’t a public employee, cap does not apply to First Transit. | First Transit not capped; CGIA cap does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Regional Transportation District, 907 P.2d 672 (Colo.App.1995) ( CGIA scope distinct from common-law respondeat superior analysis)
- Norton v. Gilman, 949 P.2d 565 (Colo.1997) (public employee status requires common-law employee analysis; independent contract issues not present)
- Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo.2000) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius; explicit inclusions exclude others)
- Bertrand v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 223 (Colo.1994) (strict construction of CGIA to give effect to General Assembly intent)
- State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo.2000) (statutory construction guiding CGIA interpretation)