Woodsmall v. Regional Transp. Dist.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89SA195,89SA195 |
| Parties | Carol WOODSMALL and Hughie Bennett, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a subdivision of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Bucholtz, Bull & Ewing, P.C., Mary Ewing, Law Office of Brian J. Lampert, Brian J. Lampert, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Carol Gilman Ford, for defendant-appellee.
The plaintiff-appellants, Carol Woodsmall and Hughie Bennett, appeal the district court's dismissal of their personal injury claims against the Regional Transportation District (RTD) due to their failure to comply with the notice provisions of section 24-10-109 of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24-10-101 to 120, 10A C.R.S. (1988 & 1990 Supp.). In dismissing the case, the district court ruled when subsection (1) of section 24-10-109 was amended in 1986 to state that "compliance" with the notice provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act shall be a jurisdictional prerequisite to any action brought against a public entity, the General Assembly thereby intended to impose a more stringent requirement than the preexisting "substantial compliance" standard and that Woodsmall and Bennett failed to satisfy the more stringent standard. We reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings because, in our view, the district court imposed a more stringent standard than was legislatively intended by the 1986 amendment to section 24-10-109.
The 1986 legislative amendment to section 24-10-109(1) is central to the resolution of this case. Prior to 1986, section 24-10-109(1), 10 C.R.S. (1982), stated:
Any person claiming to have suffered an injury by a public entity or by an employee thereof while in the course of such employment shall file a written notice as provided in this section within one hundred eighty days after the date of the discovery of the injury. Substantial compliance with the notice provisions of this section shall be a condition precedent to any action brought under the provisions of this article, and failure of substantial compliance shall be a complete defense to any such action.
(Emphasis added). In 1986, the General Assembly amended section 24-10-109 to read as follows:
Any person claiming to have suffered an injury by a public entity or by an employee thereof while in the course of such employment shall file a written notice as provided in this section within one hundred eighty days after the date of the discovery of the injury, regardless of whether the person then knew all of the elements of a claim or of a cause of action for such injury. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall be a jurisdictional prerequisite to any action brought under the provisions of this article, and failure of compliance shall forever bar any such action.
(Emphasis added). Ch. 166, sec. 9, § 24-10-109(1), 1986 Colo.Sess.Laws 873, 877 (presently codified at § 24-10-109(1), 10A C.R.S. (1988)). Section 24-10-109(2), 10A C.R.S. (1988), which was part of the original Governmental Immunity Act and was not affected by the 1986 amendment, requires that the written notice to the public entity contain the following:
(a) The name and address of the claimant and the name and address of his attorney, if any;
(b) A concise statement of the factual basis of the claim, including the date, time, place, and circumstances of the act, omission, or event complained of;
(c) The name and address of any public employee involved, if known;
(d) A concise statement of the nature and the extent of the injury claimed to have been suffered;
(e) A statement of the amount of monetary damages that is being requested.
Subsection (3) of the statute states that if the claim is against a public entity other than the state, "the notice shall be filed with the governing body of the public entity or the attorney representing the public entity" and that "[s]uch notice shall be effective upon mailing by registered mail or upon personal service." § 24-10-109(3), 10A C.R.S. (1988).
On January 14, 1987, Bennett was driving a motor vehicle in which his wife, Woodsmall, and their two minor children were riding as passengers. While Bennett's vehicle was stopped for a red light, a RTD bus struck a van which, in turn, collided with the rear of Bennett's vehicle. After the accident Bennett took Woodsmall to a hospital, where she was diagnosed as suffering from a backsprain and then released without further treatment. Bennett reported the accident by telephone to RTD on the following day. A report of Bennett's telephone call was prepared by a RTD employee. The report included a description of the time, place, and circumstances of the collision, the name of the RTD bus driver, and the fact that Woodsmall went to the hospital after the collision. The claim was then assigned to a RTD claims adjuster, Armonde Hainesworth, for investigation.
Over the next several days Woodsmall developed persistent pain in the areas of her neck and shoulder and experienced left temporal lobe headaches. She was treated for these symptoms with medication, ultrasound, electric shock, and osteopathic manipulative therapy. When Woodsmall's symptoms progressively worsened, she was referred to several physicians, including a specialist in temporal mandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome.
On March 18, 1987, Hainesworth, the RTD claims adjuster, forwarded to the attorney for both Woodsmall and Bennett a medical release authorization for Woodsmall's signature. The attorney rejected the releases, but wrote to the adjuster on April 1, 1987, and offered to prepare appropriate authorization forms, and then stated in his letter:
We have, at this point in time, ordered copies of Ms. Woodsmall's medical records to date. Whatever information we receive regarding her medical condition will be provided to you. It appears at this point in time that Ms. Woodsmall's injuries are quite substantial. She is undergoing treatment with Dr. Bennett Mechanic, a neurologist in the Denver area, and he has referred her to a specialist in temporary mendibular [sic] joint syndrome. As soon as I get information regarding the extent of her injuries, it will certainly be provided to you. We would very much like to resolve this matter short of litigation. Once Ms. Woodsmall reaches maximum medical improvement, or we are able to determine the complete extent of her injuries, we will be able to discuss settlement with you.
On May 15, 1987, Woodsmall's and Bennett's attorney mailed a document to RTD entitled "Notice of Claim Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109," with a copy to RTD's legal counsel. The document stated:
The above Claimants hereby provide notice in accordance with C.R.S. 24-10-109 of their claim arising out of a bus/automobile accident occurring on or about January 14, 1987, at the intersection of Larimer and 15th Streets, within the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado.
To the best of Claimants' knowledge and belief, they were rear-ended as a result of the negligence of an RTD bus. The Claimants were in a vehicle sitting still at a red light and the bus forced a van into the rear end of Claimants' vehicle.
The Claimants are seeking damages for physical injuries. Damages will be sought in an amount to be determined at a later date. Treatment is on-going and it is impossible at this point in time to determine an amount.
On September 2, 1987, Woodsmall's attorney forwarded medical reports and medical bills to the RTD claims adjuster, again repeating that treatment to Woodsmall was "on-going" and that a current prognosis was still unavailable. Approximately one month later Woodsmall's attorney sent to the claims adjuster an itemized statement of all medical bills incurred by Woodsmall and stated in the letter that he had requested Woodsmall's past dental records. These records were later forwarded to the claims adjuster in January 1988, along with a detailed letter describing the extent of Woodsmall's injuries. It was at this time, in January 1988, that the attorney notified the RTD claims adjuster of Bennett's claim for loss of consortium.
After settlement negotiations failed, Woodsmall and Bennett filed a complaint against RTD on April 19, 1988. Woodsmall claimed damages as a result of permanent injuries sustained in the accident, and Bennett's claim was limited to loss of consortium. RTD filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the notice of claim sent to RTD on May 15, 1987, did not list the personal injuries sustained by Woodsmall, nor did it specifically describe Bennett's claim as one for loss of consortium, and thereby deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the 1986 amendment to section 24-10-109(1) was intended to create a more stringent standard of notice than previously existed and that the notice of claim sent to RTD did not comply with the applicable statutory standard. 1 Woodsmall and Bennett filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that the court erred in imposing a standard of absolute or strict compliance and that such a construction violated due process of law and equal protection of the laws. The district court denied their motion, ruling in part that section 24-10-109(3) required that the notice of claim must be made by registered mail or personal service and that Woodsmall and Bennett failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act.
Woodsmall and Bennett thereafter filed this appeal and claim that the district court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neiberger v. Hawkins, Civ.A. 99-B-1120.
...Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff need only substantially comply with the CGIA's notice provisions. See Woodsmall v. Regional Transport. Dist., 800 P.2d 63, 69 (Colo.1990). Therefore, to the extent that notice of NGRI status may be required, Plaintiffs have substantially complied with......
-
Moody v. Corsentino
...to the intent of the legislature. State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Saddoris, 825 P.2d 39, 42 (Colo.1992); Woodsmall v. Regional Transp. Dist., 800 P.2d 63, 67 (Colo.1990). To do so, the court must look first to the statutory language. Woodsmall, 800 P.2d at 67. When that language is clear ......
-
Colorado Dept. of Revenue v. Woodmen of the World
...is to discern and give effect to the intent of the legislature. E.g., Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218, 221 (1992); Woodsmall v. Regional Transp. Dist., 800 P.2d 63, 67 (Colo.1990). We look primarily to the language of a statute to determine legislative intent. E.g., Jones, 828 P.2d at 221; Woods......
-
Katz v. City of Aurora
...notice requirements of the GIA is required for tort claims against public entities under Colorado law. See Woodsmall v. Regional Transportation District, 800 P.2d 63, 68 (Colo.1990). "Substantial compliance" means that the notice is timely, in writing, and evidences a good faith effort to i......
-
Sovereign Immunity in Colorado: a Look at the Cgia
...2007); Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc., 229 P.3d 282, 298 (Colo.App. 2009). [125] Woodsmall v. Reg’l Transp. Dist., 800 P.2d 63, 68–69 (Colo. 1990); Awad v. Breeze, 129 P.3d 1039, 1042 (Colo.App. 2005). [126] Finnie v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. R-1, 79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 200......
-
The Changing Concept of Governmental Immunity
...857 P.2d 1346 (Colo.App. 1993). 28. Trinity, supra, note 22. 29. CRS § 24-10-109(2). 30. Woodsmall v. Regional Transportation District, 800 P.2d 63 (Colo. 1990). 31. Cassidy v. Reider, 851 P.2d 286 (Colo. App. 1993). 32. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Denver School Dist. No.1, 787 P.2d 206 ......
-
Discovery: a Prerequisite to the Running of the Governmental Notice Period
...text accompanying notes 13 through 18. 3. City of Lafayette v. Barrack, 847 P.2d 136, 139 (Colo. 1983), quoting Woodsmall v. R.T.D., 800 P.2d 63, 68 (Colo. 1990). 4. In re Estate of Daigle, 634 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1981); Public Service Co. v. Barnhill, 690 P.2d 1248 (Colo. 1984). 5. McMahon v. D......
-
Substantial Compliance With Governmental Immunity Act Notice Requirements
...1987). 2. Fritz v. Regents of University of Colorado, 586 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1978). See also, Woodsmall v. Regional Transportation District, 800 P.2d 63 (Colo. 1990). 3. CRS § 24--10--109(1). Lack of compliance deprives the courts of subject matter jurisdiction. See, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.......