Tancrede v. Freund
2017 COA 36
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Collision occurred in a private alley owned by Denver East Machinery Company (DEMC); plaintiff was a passenger and a trespasser on the property.
- DEMC employee and president Duane Freund was driving a DEMC truck; police report found Freund at fault for careless driving.
- Plaintiff sued DEMC and Freund for negligence and negligence per se; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the Premises Liability Act (PLA) governs and preempts common-law claims.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, allowed PLA amendment, then granted summary judgment again after finding plaintiff a trespasser who did not allege willful or deliberate conduct by defendants.
- On appeal, plaintiff argued her vehicular negligence claims survive because they do not impose duties tied to landownership and because the careless driving statute supports negligence per se.
- Court of Appeals concluded the PLA exclusively governs injuries occurring on the land from activities on the property and, because plaintiff was a trespasser who did not allege willful or deliberate injury, dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLA is the sole remedy for injuries from an automobile collision on private property | Tancrede: PLA does not preclude her negligent driving claims against Freund/DEMC | DEMC/Freund: PLA preempts common-law torts for injuries occurring on their property | Held: PLA governs exclusively; common-law negligence claims preempted |
| Whether suing defendants as drivers (not as landowners) avoids PLA preemption | Tancrede: Claim against drivers does not implicate landowner duties so PLA shouldn't bar it | DEMC/Freund: Injury arose from activities on the property so PLA still applies | Held: Court rejects plaintiff’s distinction; Larrieu controls—PLA applies broadly |
| Whether negligence per se based on careless driving statute provides separate civil remedy | Tancrede: Careless driving statute supports negligence per se against drivers | DEMC/Freund: Statute is a misdemeanor traffic offense and does not create a civil cause of action; PLA preempts such tort claims | Held: Careless driving statute does not create an independent civil cause of action; negligence per se claim barred by PLA |
| Whether trespasser can recover absent willful or deliberate conduct | Tancrede: (no successful argument) | DEMC/Freund: PLA limits trespasser recovery to willful or deliberate injury only | Held: Plaintiff was a trespasser and did not allege willful/deliberate conduct; no recovery under PLA |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004) (PLA supplies comprehensive, exclusive duties landowners owe to those injured on their property)
- Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) (PLA preempts negligence per se claims against landowners for on-premises injuries)
- Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Martin, 209 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2009) (discussion of PLA’s limits to abrogation of common-law doctrines affecting landowner duties)
- Teneyck v. Roller Hockey Colorado, Ltd., 10 P.3d 707 (Colo. App. 2000) (PLA governs spectator injuries on premises rather than common-law no-duty rule)
- Pyles-Knutzen v. Board of County Commissioners, 781 P.2d 164 (Colo. App. 1989) (discussing negligence per se in the context of traffic statutes)