Jordan v. Panorama Orthopedics & Spine Center, PC
346 P.3d 1035
Colo.2015Background
- Jordan sued Panorama Orthopedics & Spine Center, PC for negligence and premises liability over a fall on a common-area sidewalk outside Panorama’s main entrance.
- Panorama is a large clinic on a campus with multiple tenants; the lease defines Common Areas to include sidewalks and assigns maintenance to the landlord.
- Plaintiff alleged Panorama knew or should have known of a danger in the sidewalk and failed to exercise reasonable care.
- The trial court denied Panorama’s motion for a directed verdict under the Premises Liability Act (PLA); the jury returned a verdict for Jordan.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding Panorama was not a PLA landowner; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed, ruling Panorama was not a landowner under the PLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PLA define landowner to include a commercial tenant? | Jordan asserts Panorama is a landowner via possession or responsibility. | Panorama contends it is not in possession nor legally responsible for the sidewalk. | No; Panorama is not a PLA landowner. |
| Is a tenant legally responsible for a sidewalk condition under PLA due to maintenance or emergency repair rights? | Panorama’s maintenance-related rights make it legally responsible. | Landlord retains maintenance responsibility; tenant rights do not confer landowner status. | No; Panorama was not legally responsible for the sidewalk condition. |
| Can non-exclusive use of common areas, indemnity, or emergency-repair clauses render a tenant a landowner under PLA? | Such provisions show control/assumption of risk. | These clauses do not transfer landowner status under PLA. | No; these provisions do not make Panorama a PLA landowner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. Black Canyon Aggregates, Inc., 48 P.3d 1215 (Colo. 2002) (broad PLA landowner definitions; possession and legally responsible definitions applied)
- Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 303 P.3d 558 (Colo. 2013) (PLA scope; landowner status under two definitions explained)
- Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 489 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1971) (established unitary standard prior to PLA; then PLA narrowed liability by definition)
- Lakeview Assocs. v. Maes, 907 P.2d 580 (Colo. 1995) (clarifies when legal effect is a question of law under undisputed facts)
- Justus v. Jefferson County School Dist. R-1, 725 P.2d 767 (Colo. 1986) (recognizes assumed duty separate from landowner status under PLA)
- Wark v. United States, 269 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2001) (illustrates PLA-related possession/control considerations in non-titleholder context)