Carroll v. Regional Transp. Dist., 81CA0041

Decision Date03 September 1981
Docket NumberNo. 81CA0041,81CA0041
Citation638 P.2d 816
PartiesTimothy B. CARROLL and Darrel Evans, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a Political Subdivision of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee, and The Robinson Brick and Tile Company, a Colorado corporation, Defendant. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Robert C. Ozer, P.C., Robert C. Ozer, Conifer, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Alan E. Richman, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

VAN CISE, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Timothy B. Carroll and Darrel Evans, appeal a summary judgment entered against them on their claims against defendant Regional Transportation District (RTD), a public entity, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and outrageous conduct. The claims against defendant Robinson Brick and Tile Company are not involved in this appeal. We affirm.

On October 8, 1979, plaintiffs were arrested by a security officer employed by RTD for allegedly stealing property from Robinson Brick and Tile Company located adjacent to RTD's facilities. That officer then filed a complaint with the Denver Police Department and the Denver District Attorney, which complaint resulted in plaintiffs' temporary incarceration and the filing of theft charges against them. On October 15, 1979, in a matter related to the arrest, RTD took disciplinary action against plaintiff Carroll. Plaintiffs were acquitted of the criminal charges on April 10, 1980. Summons and complaint in the instant action were served on RTD on July 22, 1980.

RTD moved for summary judgment based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with § 24-10-109, C.R.S. 1973 (1980 Cum. Supp.), the notice provision of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (the Act). The Act requires notice to be given to the public entity substantially in the form prescribed in the statute, "within one hundred eighty days after the date of the discovery of the injury." Plaintiffs provided notice to RTD on September 4, 1980. In granting RTD's summary judgment motion, the trial court found that plaintiffs knew of their alleged injuries on October 15, 1979, at the latest, and that, therefore, the statutory notice was not timely provided.

Plaintiffs assert that it was not until April 10, 1980, the date of their acquittal, that RTD completed its participation in the acts, omissions, and events complained of, and that the full extent of plaintiffs' injuries was not known until that date. Therefore, plaintiffs contend, the 180-day period did not begin running until April 10.

RTD maintains that the notice period commenced from the date plaintiffs were aware of the alleged injuries, October 15, 1979, at the latest. Having failed to provide the required notice within 180 days from that date, it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dominguez v. Babcock
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 16, 1984
    ...(1979). The date of discovery of the injury implicitly encompasses the discovery of the basis of the claim. Carroll v. Regional Transportation District, 638 P.2d 816 (Colo.App.1981). Here, plaintiff discovered the basis of the claim on August 25, 1980, when Mueller presented him with the Au......
  • Allen v. City of Aurora, 93CA1343
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1994
    ...prosecution claims accrue at the time of the allegedly wrongful arrest is not applicable here. See Carroll v. Regional Transportation District, 638 P.2d 816 (Colo.App.1981). In Robinson v. Maruffi, supra, plaintiff alleged § 1983 claims based on conspiracy, false arrest, false imprisonment,......
  • Masters v. Castrodale, 04CA1278.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2005
    ...a notice under the GIA when claimants are aware that allegedly improper charges have been filed against them. Carroll v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 638 P.2d 816 (Colo.App.1981). In Carroll, supra, the plaintiffs were arrested by a security officer employed by RTD, which resulted in overnight inca......
  • Morrison v. City of Aurora, 85CA1397
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1987
    ...of their claimed injuries and potential action for damages starts the 180-day notice period running. Carroll v. Regional Transportation District, 638 P.2d 816 (Colo.App.1981). Here, the plaintiffs were aware of the claimed injury to the property and the potential damages in June when the no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT