Hartsough v. State, 87CA1262

• Decision Date: 25 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87CA1262,87CA1262
• Citation: 762 P.2d 758
• Parties: Mary Beth HARTSOUGH and Patrick J. Hartsough,Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE of Colorado; Colorado State University; Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital; Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences; Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Veterinary Teaching Hospital; Dr. John Smith, D.V.M.; and Heidi Hamlin, Defendants-Appellees. . IV
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 758

762 P.2d 758

Mary Beth HARTSOUGH and Patrick J. Hartsough,Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE of Colorado; Colorado State University; Colorado

State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital; Colorado

State University College of Veterinary Medicine and

Biomedical Sciences; Colorado State University College of

Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Veterinary

Teaching Hospital; Dr. John Smith, D.V.M.; and Heidi

Hamlin, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87CA1262.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. IV.

Aug. 25, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1988.

Certiorari Granted Jan. 23, 1989.

Zak, Fox, Pehr and Fuller, P.C., David W. Pehr, Westminster, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Timothy R. Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees.

HUME, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Mary Beth and Patrick J. Hartsough, appeal the dismissal of their complaint in which they alleged that the defendants' negligent medical examination of a llama resulted in its death. The Hartsoughs contend that the trial court erred in concluding that defendants were immune from liability pursuant to § 24-10-106(1)(b), C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 10) of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Act). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Section 24-10-106, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 10) creates the following relevant exception to immunity for tort claims:

"(1) A public entity shall be immune from liability in all claims for injury which are actionable in tort except as provided otherwise in this section. Sovereign immunity, whether previously available as a defense or not, shall not be asserted by a public entity as a defense in an action for damages for injuries resulting from:

....

"(b) The operation of any public hospital, correctional facility, as defined in section 17-1-102, C.R.S. 1973, or jail by such public entity...." (emphasis added)

The district court concluded that the term "public hospital" was not intended to include public veterinary hospitals and, accordingly, dismissed plaintiffs' claims. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the term "public hospital" should be interpreted to include all types of public hospitals, not just those institutions which treat people. We agree.

In construing a statute we must seek to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the General Assembly. Stephen v. Denver, 659 P.2d 666 (Colo.1983). We must also presume that in enacting a statute a just and reasonable result was intended. Section 2-4-201, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol.1B).

The...