266 P.3d 412
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Invitee Lombard, a district teacher, was injured descending a loft ladder in a unit at a conference resort owned by the defendants; the ladder had no handrail and led to a loft with a mattress used for reading.
- The premises included eleven fourplex buildings; the loft access was via a wall-fixed wooden ladder, not a staircase.
- Plaintiffs filed suit under the premises liability act; invitee sought damages for injuries and workers' compensation benefits were received due to employment.
- Owners moved for summary judgment asserting no notice of a dangerous condition; the trial court granted summary judgment, which was reversed on certiorari, returning to trial.
- At trial, invitee presented building-code evidence that a code-compliant staircase was required and that the ladder design violated the building code; owners contested actual notice and asserted lawful plans, occupancy certificate, and no prior incidents.
- A seven-day trial yielded a jury verdict for owners with negative responses to key questions about knowledge of danger and causation; costs were awarded to defendants, then appealed by invitee and district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation of premises liability and negligence per se under the act | Lombard: statute evidence supports breach of duty | Owners: PL statute preempts common law per Vigil | Negligence per se evidence permitted; statute governs standard of care under PL Act. |
| Adequacy of jury instructions given the law | Invitee: instructions were incomplete or improper | Owners: instructions were correct overall | Court did not err; Lombard-consistent instructions given. |
| Admissibility of 1990 plans showing loft designated as storage | Plans show code violation notice | Plans were post-construction and irrelevant | Trial court did not abuse discretion; plans excluded but admissible evidence remained intact. |
| Admission of third building-code expert testimony and related rulings | Additional expert would be non-cumulative and helpful | Testimony was cumulative and unnecessary | No abuse of discretion; third expert testimony excluded as cumulative. |
| Costs and sovereign immunity implications for school district | Costs against district permissible under law | District immune from costs as a political subdivision | Costs against district vacated; other cost rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo.2008) (premises liability act; negligence per se evidence permitted; statute as evidence of failure to exercise reasonable care)
- Lombardi v. Vigil, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo.2004) (premises liability act; limits on negligence per se preemption by statute)
- Waters v. District Court, 935 P.2d 981 (Colo.1997) (sovereign immunity for costs when no legislative provision allows awarding costs against state)