In Larrieu v. Best Buy
Stores, L.P., Case No. 2013 CO 38 (June 24, 2013), the Colorado Supreme
Court rejected the argument that the premises liability statute applies only to
those activities and circumstances that are “directly or inherently related to the
land.” In response to a certified question from the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals, the Court held that the premises liability statute applies to
conditions, activities, and circumstances on the property that the landowner is
liable for in its legal capacity as a landowner. The Court set out a two-part fact specific
case-by-case inquiry for determining whether the premises liability act applies
to a given circumstance: (a) whether the plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred
while on the landowner's real property, and (b) whether the alleged injury
occurred by reason of the property’s condition or as a result of activities
conducted or circumstances existing on the property.
In this case, the plaintiff brought a truck with an attached
trailer to a Best Buy store to pick up a freezer he had purchased the previous
day. The plaintiff and a Best Buy
employee removed the trailer’s tailgate and began carrying it away from the
trailer. As the plaintiff walked backwards, he tripped over a curb and fell
when the employee carrying the tailgate kept carrying it forward towards the
curb. The tailgate landed on top of the plaintiff causing a compression
fracture of his lumbar spine.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendant finding that even if the employee had an obligation to properly guide
the plaintiff as he walked backwards with the heavy gate, his failure to do so
was not an activity inherently related to the land so as to give rise to
recovery under the premises liability statute.
The Supreme Court rejected this analysis finding that the premises
liability statute is not restricted solely to activities and circumstances
directly or inherently related to the land since that restriction does not
appear in the statutory language. Instead, the statute uses the phrase
"activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property."
The Court also rejected the contention that the premises
liability statute covers essentially any tort that occurs on the property of
another, finding that this broad interpretation would render much of the
statute superfluous. The statute
contains language limiting its scope to injuries caused by “the condition of
[the landowner’s] property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing
on such property.”
The Court held that the circumstances of this case fell
squarely within the purview of the premises liability statute because the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant, in its capacity as a landowner, was
responsible for the activities conducted and conditions on its premises,
including the process of assisting a customer with loading a freezer he had
purchased from the retailer on to his truck.
Thus, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured by reason of the
condition of defendant’s property or activities conducted or circumstances
existing on such property.
The Court noted that its interpretation of the Premises
Liability Act harmonizes the Legislature’s stated purposes of “promot[ing] . .
. responsibility by both landowners and those upon the land” and “creat[ing] a legal
climate which will promote private property rights and commercial enterprise
and will foster the availability and affordability of insurance.” At the same time, the interpretation of the
statute does not interfere with the Legislature’s intent to “protect landowners
from liability in some circumstances when they were not protected at common
law.” The Court gave examples of this
protection including the statute’s requirement that landowners have actual
knowledge of dangers on the land to be liable to licensees for injuries caused
by the dangers.
You can read the Court’s opinion here: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA213.pdf
Lee Katherine
Goldstein is an appellate lawyer with the Denver law firm of Fairfield and
Woods, PC.
No comments:
Post a Comment