2013 COA 87
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Barbara Jordan injured tripping on a sidewalk leading to Panorama’s leased office space; suit brought under the Premises Liability Act, § 18-21-115; district court denied Panorama summary judgment on premises liability but granted verdict on landowner status; jury awarded damages with fault apportioned among Panorama, property owner, and property manager; Panorama moved for directed verdict on landowner status and appellate standard of review was raised as a mixed question of fact and law; undisputed facts show Panorama did not possess the sidewalk nor create the sidewalk condition; lease terms allocated sidewalk maintenance to landlord; no evidence of Panorama’s control over common areas; court ultimately held Panorama not a landowner under the Act and reversed.”,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Panorama a landowner under the Act? | Jordan argues Panorama conducted activities or possessed the sidewalk. | Panorama argues it lacked possession and control over the sidewalk. | No; Panorama is not a landowner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. Black Canyon Aggregates, Inc., 48 P.3d 1215 (Colo. 2002) (broad, expansive landowner definition; liability tied to activity or condition created)
- Wycoff v. Grace County Church, 251 P.3d 1260 (Colo. App. 2010) (landowner status depends on conduct of activity on property; tenancy context considered)
- Henderson v. Master Klean Janitorial, Inc., 70 P.3d 612 (Colo. App. 2003) (landowner where cleaning company conducted activity on property; liability tied to activity)
- Nordin v. Madden, 148 P.3d 218 (Colo. App. 2006) (tenant possession or conduct evidence; genuine issue of material fact possible)
- Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158 (Colo. 2005) (defining landowner/possession and related statutory interpretation)