DeLong v. City and County of Denver, 73--256

• Decision Date: 20 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73--256,73--256
• Citation: 530 P.2d 1308,34 Colo.App. 330
• Parties: Svea Virginia DeLONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, and John Ronald DeWitt, Defendants-Appellees. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 1308

530 P.2d 1308

34 Colo.App. 330

Svea Virginia DeLONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, and John Ronald DeWitt, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 73--256.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Aug. 20, 1974.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Dec. 3, 1974.

Certiorari Granted Feb. 10, 1975.

Kripke, Carrigan & Bragg, P.C., Kenneth N. Kripke, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Max P. Zall, City Atty., Lee G. Rallis, John E. McDermott, Asst. City Attys., for defendants-appellees.

COYTE, Judge.

The plaintiff, Svea Virginia DeLong, was injured when the car which she was driving collided with a police car driven by defendant DeWitt while he was engaged in an emergency run to cover the fire department on a possible fire bombing. The police vehicle was proceeding south on Sheridan Boulevard. Plaintiff was proceeding west on West Evans Avenue. The red light of the police car was flashing, but the vehicle did not sound its siren until immediately before reaching the intersection. The traffic light at the intersection was red for north-south traffic. The two police officers in the vehicle testified the police vehicle had slowed to 30 miles per hour before entering the intersection. Other witnesses estimated the vehicle's speed at 40--50 miles per hour. None of the witnesses saw plaintiff's car until it entered the intersection going approximately 25 miles per hour. The two vehicles collided, and plaintiff suffered serious injury and remained in a coma for more than a month. She has no recollection of the accident. The plaintiff brought suit against the City and County of Denver and Officer DeWitt, seeking damages for her injuries. The case was tried to a jury which found for the defendants. We reverse.

During the trial, plaintiff attempted to introduce as an exhibit, a copy of the Denver Police Department Rules and Regulations and have the court instruct the jury as to the effect of these rules and regulations. Section 11.4 of these rules provides, in pertinent part, that at no time when answering fire calls will an officer proceed through red signal lights in excess of 15 miles per hour. The defendants objected to the introduction of this exhibit on the ground that the police department does not have the authority to set a standard of care for the operation of police vehicles. The trial court upheld this objection. This was error.

Neither party has cited to us a Colorado case in which the admissibility into evidence of the safety rules and regulations of an employer has been considered, nor have we found such a case. However, other jurisdictions have considered this issue and it is generally held that safety rules of an employer are admissible on the grounds that they constitute evidence of the standard of due care applicable to an employee's conduct and the employee's failure to follow the safety rules constitutes evidence of his negligence. Koninklijke v. Tuller, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 292 F.2d 775; Powell v. Pacific Electric Railway Co., 35 Cal.2d 40, 216 P.2d 448; Simon v. City and County of San Francisco, 79 Cal.App.2d 590, 180 P.2d 393; Dillenbeck v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal.2d 472, 72 Cal.Rptr. 321, 446 P.2d 129.

The facts in Dillenbeck are almost identical to those in the case before us. There a police vehicle passed through a red light at a speed estimated at 40--60 miles per hour and collided with a car which had entered the intersection with a green light. The Los Angeles Police Department had issued safety rules titled 'Training Bulletins' which instructed police officers to decelerate to fifteen miles per hour when passing an...