Ross v. Public Service
2025 COA 31
Colo. Ct. App.2025Background
- Carol Ross was killed in an explosion after excavators ruptured a natural gas pipeline operated by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo/Xcel Energy) beneath her home in November 2018.
- The estate and heirs of Carol Ross sued PSCo (and others, who settled) for wrongful death, negligence, and related claims.
- At trial, the jury found PSCo negligent and allocated fault among PSCo and several nonparties, awarding $15 million in noneconomic damages.
- The district court capped noneconomic damages against PSCo per Colorado's Wrongful Death Act (WDA), and denied application of the "felonious killing exception" to the cap for corporations.
- The court also ruled on the interpretation of a federal pipeline safety regulation, the listing of nonparties on the verdict form, and the methodology for damage apportionment relative to the damages cap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the felonious killing exception to the WDA damages cap applies to corporations | Exception applies to both individuals and corporations, supported by WDA language and legislative history | Exception cannot apply to corporations; the term "individual" excludes them | Exception applies to corporations as well as individuals |
| Whether 49 C.F.R. § 192.614 requires PSCo to supervise excavators | Regulation requires pipeline operators to supervise excavation activities for damage prevention | Regulation only requires inspection of pipeline integrity, not active supervision of excavators | Regulation does not require operators to supervise excavators, only to inspect pipelines as necessary |
| Whether nonparties should be separately listed for fault allocation on verdict form | Nonparties’ faults should be aggregated to avoid duplicative liability; only one allocation for direct and derivative conduct | Each nonparty must be listed separately under Colorado's apportionment statute | Statute requires separate listing and allocation for each nonparty; court acted properly |
| Order of applying damages cap and fault apportionment | Cap should be applied per-defendant after fault allocation | Cap is per-case, applied before dividing among defendants by fault | Cap must be applied to the overall award, then distributed by defendants’ share of fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanahan v. Chi Psi Fraternity, 175 P.3d 97 (Colo. 2008) (held WDA damages cap applies per claim, not per defendant)
- Alhilo v. Kliem, 2016 COA 142 (clarified order of comparative fault reduction and damages cap in wrongful death)
- Ochoa v. Vered, 212 P.3d 963 (Colo. App. 2009) (captain of the ship/vicarious liability in medical negligence context)
- Bennett v. Greeley Gas Co., 969 P.2d 754 (Colo. App. 1998) (regulatory standards as evidence of standard of care)