Carlson v. Ferris

• Decision Date: 01 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02SC395.,02SC395.
• Citation: 85 P.3d 504
• Parties: Leslyn CARLSON, Petitioner, v. Kimberly Sue FERRIS and Man Made Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Dominos Pizza, Respondents.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

85 P.3d 504

Leslyn CARLSON, Petitioner, v. Kimberly Sue FERRIS and Man Made Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Dominos Pizza, Respondents.

No. 02SC395.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

December 1, 2003.

Gradisar, Trechter, Ripperger, Roth & Croshal, James M. Croshal Pueblo, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Pascoe, P.C., Richard L. Shearer, Robert S. Anderson, Denver, Colorado, Paul S. Edwards & Associates, Fotios Burtzos, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondents.

Justice MARTINEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this case, we determine whether the language of section 42-4-237(2), 11 C.R.S. (2003), requires that a driver of an automobile wear both a lap and a shoulder belt. We hold that section 42-4-237(2) requires that drivers and front seat passengers of automobiles that have been equipped with a lap and a shoulder belt pursuant to federal motor vehicle safety standards must wear both the lap and the shoulder belt in order to comply with the statute.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Leslyn Carlson filed suit against Kimberly Ferris after the two were involved in an automobile accident. Carlson alleged that Ferris caused the accident when she failed to yield the right of way at a stop sign. At the time of the accident, the driver's seat of Carlson's vehicle was equipped both with an automatic shoulder belt and a separate lap belt that had to be manually fastened. Prior to trial, Carlson stipulated that she was wearing the automatic shoulder belt, but not the separate manual lap belt, at the time of the accident.

In her defense, Ferris sought to show that Carlson was in violation of section 42-4-237(2) because she was wearing only one of the two available safety belts. Subsection two requires that drivers and front seat passengers in a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt system wear a "fastened safety belt" while the vehicle is being operated on a street or highway. The subsection reads:

Unless exempted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, every driver of and every front seat passenger in a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt while the motor vehicle is being operated on a street or highway in this state.

§ 42-4-237(2).

Because Carlson was not wearing her manual lap belt at the time of the accident, Ferris asked the trial court to instruct the jury that Carlson's failure to wear the lap belt mitigates damages. Specifically, Ferris requested Civil Jury Instruction 5:2A, failure to mitigate by nonuse of a safety belt.¹ Ferris argued that the language of subsection seven of 42-4-237 entitled her to such an instruction. Section 42-4-237(7) states, in relevant part:

Evidence of failure to comply with the requirement of subsection (2) of this section shall be admissible to mitigate damages with respect to any person who was involved in a motor vehicle accident and who seeks in any subsequent litigation to recover damages for injuries resulting from the accident.

The trial court ruled that because Carlson was wearing at least one of the available safety belts, she was in compliance with the statute. Thus, the trial court refused to give the requested instruction 5:2A on nonuse of a safety belt.² Additionally, the trial court precluded Ferris from making any reference to Carlson's failure to wear her lap belt as evidence of a statutory violation.

On appeal, Ferris contended the trial court erred when it refused jury instruction 5:2A and precluded Ferris from arguing that Carlson's failure to wear her lap belt constituted a statutory violation. The court of appeals agreed with Ferris and held that the plain meaning of section 42-4-237(2) "requires drivers to fasten all safety belts included in a vehicle's safety belt system in order to defeat a claim of failure to mitigate under § 42-4-237(7)." Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055, 1058 (Colo.App.2002). The court of appeals reasoned that the definition of "safety belt system" contained in section 42-4-237(1)(b) includes a combination of lap and shoulder belts, but does not specify the various usage options that may satisfy the requirement that one wear a "fastened safety belt." The court of appeals insisted that this language reveals the General Assembly's intent to require that a driver and every front seat passenger utilize the complete "system." Therefore, the court of appeals reversed the trial court judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

We granted certiorari in this case to interpret the language of section 42-4-237(2). Section 42-4-237(2) reads:

Unless exempted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, every driver of and every front seat passenger in a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt while the motor vehicle is being operated on a street or highway in this state. (emphasis added)

The question raised on review is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that section 42-4-237(2) requires that a driver of a vehicle that has been equipped with a lap and a shoulder belt pursuant to federal motor vehicle safety standards must wear both the lap and the shoulder belt.

II. ANALYSIS

Although both parties agree that the language of section 42-4-237(2) is clear and unambiguous, each party differs as to what the General Assembly intended and what the statute requires. After reviewing each party's arguments, we do not find either party's interpretation to be correct.

A. ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES

Carlson's plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term "safety belt system" and the words "fastened safety belt." In section 42-4-237(1)(b), the General Assembly defined safety belt system as:

a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The General Assembly next stated that drivers and front seat passengers of motor vehicles "equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt." § 42-4-237(2). Carlson asserts that because the language of section 42-4-237(2) differentiates between a "safety belt system" and "a fastened safety belt," the legislature did not intend that individuals utilize an entire safety belt system. Rather, Carlson argues, a driver or front seat passenger of an automobile complies with the statute when wearing at least one of the belts in a safety belt system.

Ferris has come to a markedly different conclusion in regard to the plain meaning of section 42-4-237(2). Unlike Carlson, Ferris draws no distinction between the terms "safety belt system" and "fastened safety belt." Instead, Ferris further argues the term "fastened safety belt" refers both to a fastened safety belt and to fastened safety belts. For this interpretation, Ferris relies upon section 2-4-102, 1 C.R.S. (2003), which provides that the "singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular." Thus, Ferris reads the requirement of a "fastened safety belt" to mean "fastened safety belts."

Ferris insists that this plain meaning interpretation is supported by an understanding that the purpose behind the statute is to conform to "federal motor vehicle safety standards." § 42-4-237(1)(b). Ferris argues that because the state of Colorado does not conduct its own safety belt testing or implement regulations governing safety belts, Colorado is wholly reliant on the federal guidelines and standards related to safety belt use and manufacture. To bolster this point, Ferris details the history of the federal government's efforts to enlist the assistance of the states in creating seat belt laws which function to promote seat belt use and further driving safety.³ According to Ferris, this rich history coupled with the voluminous applicable federal regulations⁴ on the subject make clear that the federal government intended to create rigorous safety belt standards in order to reduce traffic death and injuries. Thus, given Colorado's adherence to federal motor vehicle safety standards, Ferris claims that it would be absurd to allow an individual to wear only one safety belt when two are available for their particular seat.

B. PLAIN MEANING

We construe the statute as a whole to understand the meaning of particular terms and to give effect to the legislative intent. Our interpretation of the plain language of section 42-2-237(2) leads us to the conclusion that the General Assembly, by requiring drivers and front seat passengers to wear a "fastened safety belt," intended that drivers and front seat passengers wear both a lap and a shoulder belt when a vehicle has been equipped with both belts pursuant to federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In matters involving statutory interpretation, the duties of a reviewing court are clear. The court has a fundamental responsibility to interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to the General Assembly's intent in enacting that particular statute. People v. Luther, 58 P.3d 1013, 1015 (Colo. 2002); Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846, 851 (Colo.2001); Anderson v. Watson, 953 P.2d 1284, 1290 (Colo.1998). Such is best achieved by looking at the language of the statute and giving the words their plain and ordinary meaning. Luther, 58 P.3d at 1015; Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 35 (Colo.2000). If the statutory language unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, other rules of statutory interpretation need not be employed. People v. Norton, 63 P.3d 339, 344 (Colo.2003). It is essential that courts refrain from rendering opinions that are inconsistent with the legislative intent. City of Colorado Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1249 (Colo.2000). Therefore, courts must construe the statute as a whole in order to give "consistent, harmonious and sensible...