Thorpe v. City and County of Denver, 70--440
| Decision Date | 07 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--440,70--440 |
| Citation | 494 P.2d 129,30 Colo.App. 284 |
| Parties | Veronica D. THORPE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, State of Colorado, a Municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Edward B. Almon, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Max P. Zall, City Atty., Lloyd K. Shinsato, Lee G. Rallis, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
This appeal arises out of a wrongful death action filed by Veronica Thorpe against the City and County of Denver and two members of the Denver Police Department. The complaint alleged the City and the two policemen negligently failed to repair a malfunctioning traffic light and that this negligence caused an accident in which plaintiff's husband was killed. The defendants admitted the traffic light was malfunctioning, but denied this caused the accident and alleged the decedent's own negligence caused the accident and that sovereign immunity barred the action. Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court dismissed the case against the policemen. It further ruled that sovereign immunity was inapplicable and could not be asserted as a defense by the City. The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded her $5,000. Plaintiff's motion for new trial on the issue of damages was granted by the trial court. At the new trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $35,000.
The accident in question occurred at the intersection of Sheridan Boulevard and the westbound off-ramp of Interstate 70. Decedent was proceeding off the I--70 ramp in the left turn lane. None of the lights in the traffic signal facing him were illuminated. He entered the intersection and collided with a tractor-trailer vehicle which was proceeding northbound across the intersection in accordance with a green light.
The City first contends that the trial court erred in ruling that governmental immunity was not a defense to the present action. It is the City's position that they can be held liable only for physical defects or obstructions in streets and that a malfunctioning traffic light fits into neither category. We do not find this argument persuasive.
The City is under a duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel. Aurora v. Woolman, 165 Colo. 377, 439 P.2d 364. As stated in that case:
We find no compelling reason to limit the City's liability to defects or obstructions on the surface of the roadway. The failure of the City to maintain a traffic light property can create a condition far more dangerous than, for example, a hole in the pavement. Accordingly, we hold that the City's duty to maintain its streets includes a duty to maintain its traffic lights in a reasonably safe condition for travel.
The City next contends that the trial court erred in allowing a traffic signal mechanic to testify regarding when the City received notice of the malfunction and when it was repaired. The City argues that this testimony was offered to establish the City's negligence and relies on the general rule excluding evidence of subsequent repairs when offered as evidence of negligence. Anson v. Evans, 19 Colo. 274, 35 P. 47; Colorado Electric Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 19 P. 479. Plaintiff does not dispute this rule, but argues that the testimony was not offered to show the fact of repair nor the fact that the light was malfunctioning, but instead was offered to show that the City had notice of the defect and that, having such notice, it was not timely in correcting it. We agree.
The malfunction was admitted by the City, thereby removing any danger that the jury would infer negligence from the fact of repair. See Diamond Rubber Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanzone v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Bridgeport
...of any street' " under statute providing exception to governmental immunity from negligence actions); see also Thorpe v. Denver, 30 Colo.App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1972) (defective traffic light is a "dangerous condition in [the city's] streets" which, under earlier case law, made the city lia......
-
City of Prichard v. Kelley
...Bechtold, 105 Ariz. 125, 460 P.2d 179 (1969); Smith v. City of Preston, 97 Idaho 295, 543 P.2d 848 (1975). Thorpe v. City and County of Denver, 30 Colo.App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1972). Still others have held municipalities responsible for maintaining traffic control signs upon principles of n......
-
Rampersad v. Centerpoint Energy Hous. Elec., LLC
...a car might travel through the intersection without stopping, resulting in an accident. See id. at 426.In Thorpe v. City and County of Denver , 30 Colo.App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1971), the plaintiff’s husband was killed after his vehicle entered an intersection and collided with another vehic......
-
Archuleta v. Valencia
...damages awarded by a jury vary depending upon the factual circumstances surrounding each case. See, e.g., Thorpe v. City and County of Denver, 30 Colo.App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1971); Preuss, 391 P.2d 880; Cottingham v. Star Bus Line, 152 Colo. 188, 381 P.2d 25 (1963); King, 259 P.2d 268. We ......
-
RULE 59
...or ignored the evidence, there is no error in granting a new trial on the issue of damages. Thorpe v. City & County of Denver, 30 Colo. App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1971). Jury damage award set aside on basis of inadequacy when evidence was undisputed with respect to the existence and nature of ......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...or ignored the evidence, there is no error in granting a new trial on the issue of damages. Thorpe v. City & County of Denver, 30 Colo. App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1971). Jury damage award set aside on basis of inadequacy when evidence was undisputed with respect to the existence and nature of ......
-
Rule 59 MOTIONS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF.
...or ignored the evidence, there is no error in granting a new trial on the issue of damages. Thorpe v. City & County of Denver, 30 Colo. App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1971). Jury damage award set aside on basis of inadequacy when evidence was undisputed with respect to the existence and nature of ......
-
Rule 8 GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING.
...and proving contributory negligence rests upon the defendant under section (c) of this rule. Thorpe v. City & County of Denver, 30 Colo. App. 284, 494 P.2d 129 (1971). Where defendant alleges in one defense of his answer that plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused......