2018 COA 151
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Stella Hernandez, a pretrial detainee, alleged she suffered severe brain injury at the Denver Detention Center after a fall and an extended unattended delay before medical care.
- Hernandez sued Denver (negligence) and several deputies including Tracey Dodson (negligence and willful and wanton conduct). She sought to preserve willful-and-wanton allegations to affect damages (exemplary damages / statutory caps).
- Defendants requested a Trinity evidentiary hearing under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) to resolve whether the individual deputies’ conduct was willful and wanton and thus whether they were immune from suit under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA).
- The district court held a multi-day Trinity hearing, found Dodson did not act willfully and wantonly, and effectively dismissed the willful-and-wanton allegations against Dodson (though negligence claims remained pending).
- On interlocutory appeal Hernandez argued the jail-operation waiver of sovereign immunity (§ 24-10-106(1)(b)) precluded the individual from asserting immunity, so the willful-and-wanton issue was not a jurisdictional immunity question and should not have been resolved via a Trinity/12(b)(1) procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations that a deputy was willful and wanton raised a sovereign-immunity (jurisdictional) issue requiring a Trinity/12(b)(1) hearing | Hernandez: No — immunity is waived for injuries from operation of a jail, so willful-and-wanton allegations only affect damages (exemplary damages / caps), not jurisdiction | Dodson: Yes — willful-and-wanton allegations are an immunity issue (affecting damages cap, exemplary damages, indemnification, and defense-cost liability), so a Trinity/12(b)(1) hearing was proper | Court held Hernandez prevailed: because immunity was waived for jail operation under the CGIA, the willful-and-wanton question did not raise an immunity/jurisdictional issue and should not have been resolved via Trinity/12(b)(1). The dismissal was vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993) (describes procedure and purpose of an evidentiary Trinity hearing to resolve CGIA immunity facts)
- Finnie v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. R-1, 79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 2003) (explains that CGIA immunity issues must be resolved pretrial and may require a fact-finding Trinity hearing)
- State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1999) (holds employees involved in operation of a correctional facility were not immune when entity immunity was waived)
- DeForrest v. City of Cherry Hills Village, 72 P.3d 384 (Colo. App. 2003) (discusses effect of willful-and-wanton findings on damages and statutory caps once immunity is waived)
- Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007) (addresses procedure for establishing prima facie proof of exemplary damages on motion to amend or in preliminary proceedings)