Schlitters v. State, 89CA0226

Docket NºNo. 89CA0226
Citation787 P.2d 656
Case DateDecember 07, 1989
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Page 656

787 P.2d 656
Robert D. SCHLITTERS and Tamera Schlitters, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
STATE of Colorado and the Colorado State Department of
Highways, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89CA0226.
Colorado Court of Appeals,
Div. V.
Dec. 7, 1989.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1990.

Bailey & Finegan, Laura D. DeLeo and James L. Finegan, Lakewood, for plaintiffs-appellants.

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

Opinion by Judge JONES.

In this negligence action, plaintiffs, Robert D. and Tamera Schlitters, appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered in favor of defendants, the State of Colorado and the Colorado State Department of Highways. We reverse.

In October 1986, Robert D. Schlitters was driving his car southbound on Highway

Page 657

285. A boulder fell from an adjacent rock slope located within the state's right of way, onto the highway ahead of him. It rolled downhill in Schlitter's lane of travel and struck his car with sufficient force to overturn the vehicle.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking damages for the injuries they suffered as the result of defendants' alleged negligent failure to design, construct, maintain, or improve a portion of Highway 285.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that they are immune from liability because their duty of care was limited to physical defects in the paved highway surface and that, although they had made efforts to study or control falling rocks, it did not extend to boulders falling onto the highway. Defendants also filed a motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to §§ 13-16-113(2) and 13-17-201, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A).

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 24-10-106(1)(d), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A) did not apply to the circumstances described in the complaint. It also awarded defendants' attorney fees and costs.

The issue here is whether the trial court erred in concluding that, under § 24-10-106(1)(d), which applies to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1986, defendants are immune from liability under the circumstances alleged in the complaint. We conclude that the trial court did err.

Section 24-10-106(1), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A), provides, in relevant part, that:

"Sovereign immunity is waived by a public entity in an action for injuries resulting from:



To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Medina v. State, No. 00SC747.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 27 Novembre 2001
    ...hearing and proceeded to decide the immunity issue as a matter of law. (R. at vol. II, p. 292.) Relying on Schlitters v. State, 787 P.2d 656 (Colo.App.1989), the trial court also denied the state's motion to dismiss. It found that "[t]he dangerous condition in which the plaintiffs were inju......
  • Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., HIGH-TECH
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 9 Luglio 1998 entitled to relief. If relief can be granted under such circumstances, then the motion to dismiss must be denied. Schlitters v. State, 787 P.2d 656 Accordingly, here, the facts as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, taken as true, must show that he had a privacy interest in the seclusion o......
  • Burnett v. State Dep't of Natural Res., Supreme Court Case No. 13SC306
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 23 Marzo 2015
    ...244, 246 (Colo.App.1993) (holding that the government waived immunity for failing to secure boulders above road); Schlitters v. State, 787 P.2d 656, 658 (Colo.App.1989) (same). These cases do take location into account. However, they are inapposite because they involve section 24–10–106(1)(......
  • Willer v. City of Thornton, 90SA211
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 16 Settembre 1991
    ...increased traffic volume renders a roadway inadequate. See Madill v. County of Adams, 799 P.2d 949 (Colo.App.1989); Schlitters v. State, 787 P.2d 656 (Colo.App.1989); Karr v. City and County of Denver, 677 P.2d 1384 (Colo.App.1984). The statutory language negates the proposition that the Ge......
  • 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