2016 CO 58
Colo.2016Background
- Officers entered Steven Bleck’s hotel room for a welfare check after reports he was intoxicated, suicidal, and possibly armed; Officer Jeffrey Martinez approached Bleck "hands on" while holding an unholstered, loaded firearm, which accidentally discharged and injured Bleck.
- Bleck sued Martinez (state-law battery) and the City; federal courts dismissed the federal excessive-force claim against Martinez (finding no evidence of intentional shooting) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim; Bleck refiled the state battery claim.
- Martinez moved to dismiss under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), arguing he was immune because his conduct was not "willful and wanton" per § 24-10-118(2)(a); the trial court denied the motion, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged willful and wanton conduct.
- Martinez filed an interlocutory appeal under § 24-10-118(2.5); the court of appeals held it lacked jurisdiction, treating Martinez’s defense as only "qualified immunity," which it deemed not appealable interlocutorily.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that § 24-10-118(2.5) authorizes interlocutory appeal when a public employee raises sovereign immunity (including the willful-and-wanton exception), reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for a complete immunity determination (including a Trinity hearing if needed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a public employee’s CGIA immunity claim based on willful-and-wanton conduct is subject to interlocutory appeal under § 24-10-118(2.5) | Bleck: denial not appealable because defendant only has "qualified" immunity, not sovereign immunity | Martinez: CGIA uses "sovereign immunity" language; § 24-10-118(2.5) permits interlocutory appeal when employee raises immunity, including willful-and-wanton issue | Court: § 24-10-118(2.5) permits interlocutory appeal; willful-and-wanton determinations implicate sovereign immunity and are reviewable interlocutorily |
| Proper legal standard for "willful and wanton" under CGIA | Bleck: trial court correctly found complaint alleged Martinez "should have" known conduct was dangerous (negligence-based pleading sufficed) | Martinez: "willful and wanton" requires more than negligence; it requires a conscious disregard of danger | Court: trial court erred using negligence language; willful-and-wanton means conduct that exhibits conscious disregard for safety; remand to decide actual facts and apply correct standard |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1996) (distinguished; earlier discussion of "qualified" vs "sovereign" immunity)
- Gallagher v. Bd. of Trustees for Univ. of Northern Colorado, 54 P.3d 386 (Colo. 2002) (scope-of-employment issues implicate sovereign immunity and are appealable)
- Trinity Broad. of Denver v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993) (trial courts must resolve sovereign-immunity issues, including factual disputes, pre-trial)
- Moody v. Ungerer, 885 P.2d 200 (Colo. 1994) (willful-and-wanton requires conscious disregard for safety)
- Finnie v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. R-1, 79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 2003) (procedures for resolving sovereign immunity claims, including evidentiary hearings)