2012 COA 114
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brandon, a developmentally disabled adult, was cared for by Ability Specialists, Inc. with Oxley supervising at Oxley's home; Oxley's child was present.
- Brandon and B.O. were left unattended; Brandon reportedly engaged in inappropriate conduct toward B.O., leading to Brandon's arrest for sexual assault.
- Police investigated; Brandon was charged but found incompetent to proceed; criminal case dismissed.
- Plaintiffs Brandon’s parents sued Ability and Oxley for negligence and shedding light on supervision, training, and safety procedures.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under 18-21-117.5(4) and (6); trial court denied.
- Appellate court holds the defendants are immune under 18-21-117.5(6) for failure to predict or prevent assaultive behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18-21-117.5(6) provides immunity for failure to predict or prevent assaultive behavior | Plaintiffs argue immunity does not apply since harm is to Brandon’s victims, not Brandon himself. | Defendants argue subsection (6) immunizes providers from civil actions for failure to predict or prevent assaultive behavior by a developmentally disabled person. | Immunity applies under subsection (6). |
| Whether the trial court correctly applied 18-21-117.5(4) regarding duty to third parties | Plaintiffs contend defendants owed a duty to third parties; immunity should not bar claims. | Defendants rely on (4) to limit liability to the developmentally disabled person’s protected context. | Not necessary to address due to (6) immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 2000) (plain-language approach to statutory interpretation)
- People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004) (read words in context; literal interpretation when unambiguous)
- Klinger v. Adams County Sch. Dist. No. 50, 130 P.3d 1027 (Colo.2006) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent guided by purpose)
- J.C. v. Dungarvin Colorado, LLC, 252 P.3d 41 (Colo.App.2010) (under 13-21-117.5(4), duty limitations for providers)
- People v. Graybeal, 155 P.3d 614 (Colo.App.2007) (addressing issues raised in statement of issues)