Enright v. City of Colorado Springs, 83CA0197
| Decision Date | 31 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83CA0197,83CA0197 |
| Citation | 716 P.2d 148 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,878 Michael ENRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a municipal corporation, and Harding Glass Industries, a Missouri corporation, d/b/a Harding Glass Company, Defendants-Appellants. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Richard J. Kennedy, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Blunk and Johnson, Forrest S. Blunk, Denver, for defendant-appellant City of Colorado Springs.
Rector, Retherford, Mullen & Johnson, Neil C. Bruce, L. Dan Rector, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant Harding Glass Industries.
Defendants, City of Colorado Springs (City) and Harding Glass Industries (Harding Glass), appeal the judgment in favor of Michael Enright (plaintiff) who sustained personal injuries when he fell through a plate glass vestibule at the Colorado Springs Municipal Airport. At trial, the jury found both defendants liable based on negligence, Harding Glass liable based on the theory of strict liability, and found the plaintiff not negligent at all. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $67,500, assessing sixty-five percent of the damages against the City and thirty-five percent against Harding Glass, making both parties jointly and severally liable. We reverse.
The operative facts are the following: An airport terminal building was constructed in 1966 by the City. Subsequently, it was discovered that wind frequently blew the doors open at one end of the terminal. The City determined that installation of a vestibule would alleviate the problem. Harding Glass was employed to construct the vestibule. Construction was completed in 1967. On June 23, 1979, the plaintiff was exiting the airport terminal. As he walked through the vestibule, he fell to his right through a plate glass panel of the vestibule, and was injured.
Harding Glass alleges that, as to its liability, the plaintiff's claims are barred by § 13-80-127, C.R.S. That statute, in effect during times pertinent here, provided that:
"All actions against any ... contractor ... to recover damages for injury to person or property caused by the design ... [or] construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such action be brought more than ten years after the substantial completion of improvements to the real property...." (emphasis added)
The phrase "an improvement to real property" is not defined by the statute, and therefore, we must assume that the General Assembly intended that this phrase be given its usual and ordinary meaning. Stanske v. Wazee Electric Co., 690 P.2d 1291 (Colo.App.1984).
The trial court improperly concluded that the vestibule was a product, not an improvement to real property, and therefore does not come within the terms of the statute.
Plaintiff contends that, because the vestibule was fabricated and attached by screws and bolts to an existing doorjamb, and that it could be removed from the doorjamb without damage to the terminal building, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw Constr., LLC v. United Builder Servs., Inc.
...intends the construction to remain permanently, it constitutes an improvement even if it can be removed. Enright v. City of Colo. Springs, 716 P.2d 148, 150 (Colo.App.1985) (although glass vestibule added to building could be removed, because owner intended it to remain permanently, it cons......
-
Burnett v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., Div. of Park & Outdoor Recreation
...property,” we must assume that the General Assembly intended that it have its usual and ordinary meaning. See Enright v. City of Colorado Springs, 716 P.2d 148, 149 (Colo.App.1985).¶ 56 “Unimproved property” usually refers to real property that is in its natural state. Unimproved property t......
-
County Com'Rs of Rio Blanco v. Exxonmobil
...and ordinary meaning.'" Barron v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corp., 181 P.3d 348, 350 (Colo.App.2007) (quoting Enright v. City of Colorado Springs, 716 P.2d 148, 149 (Colo.App.1985)); see also Anderson v. M.W. Kellogg Co., 766 P.2d 637, 640 (Colo.1988). In determining that meaning, we must r......
-
Gast v. City of Fountain
...the line and that the issue of negligence in this regard was properly submitted to the jury. II Relying upon Enright v. City of Colorado Springs, 716 P.2d 148 (Colo.App.1985), defendant contends that a new trial is required because all of plaintiff's theories should not have been submitted ......
-
Construction Defect Statutes of Limitation and Repose Update Part 1
...Denver Highlands Ltd. P’ship v. Dillingham Constr. N.A., 932 P.2d 827, 829 (Colo.App. 1996). See also Enright v. City of Colo. Springs, 716 P.2d 148, 150 (Colo.App. 1986) (finding that a vestibule attached to an airport terminal is a real property improvement because the owner intended for ......
-
The Product Liability Case
...equipment; thus, plaintiff's claims barred by statute of repose at CRS §§ 13-80-104 and -107); Enright v. City of Colorado Springs, 716 P.2d 148 (Colo.App. 1985) (vestibule at constituted improvement to real property). 30. Kaplan v. C Lazy U Ranch, 615 F.Supp. 234 (D.Colo. 1985) (strict lia......
-
Statutes of Limitations and Repose in Construction Defect Cases-part I
...Ltd. P'ship v. Dillingham Constr. N.A., Inc., 932 P.2d 827 (Colo. App. 1996), cert. denied. See also Enright v. Colorado Springs, 716 P.2d 148 (Colo.App. 1985) (vestibule attached to airport terminal improvement to real property because owner intended to provide permanent relief from high w......