2005 annual survey colorado civil law victoria v. johnson, esq. shannon wells stevenson, esq....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2005 Annual SurveyColorado Civil Law
• Victoria V. Johnson, Esq.• Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq.
– Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
![Page 2: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Articles in the CLE Survey
• Annual Survey of Colorado Law for 2005• 30 Chapters for 2005
– Colorado federal and state case law– Changes to relevant statutes
![Page 3: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Scope of Discussion
• Topics we selected:– Environmental Law– Employment Torts– Real Property & Eminent Domain– Construction Law– Constitutional Law– Intellectual Property
![Page 4: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Environmental Law
• One case • Federal district court interpreting Colorado
trespass law • Rocky Flats plutonium contamination of
neighboring properties• Plaintiffs argue continuing trespass theory
to avoid the running of the statute of limitations
![Page 5: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Background on “Continuing Trespass”
• Seminal case: Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003).
• If ongoing presence of contamination on property, claim does not accrue until the tortious conduct has ceased.– Statute of limitations begins to run when
tortious conduct ceases.
![Page 6: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
A Permanent Tort Is An Exception to the Rule on Continuing Trespass
• What is a permanent tort?
–Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 358 F. Supp.2d 1003 (D. Colo. 2004).
• Not “permanent” if abating tort requires unreasonable measures or an unreasonable cost.
![Page 7: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Definition of Permanent Tort
• An ongoing property invasion that:
–will continue indefinitely and – should continue because of the social
benefit conferred
![Page 8: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Prospective Damages May Be Awarded for Continuing Trespass
and Nuisance
• Must prove liability and that invasion probably will continue indefinitely.– No reason to expect termination of the trespass
at any time in the future.
![Page 9: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Verdict in Feb. 2006
• Total of $352 million for 12,000 class members ($29,000 each before attorneys fees).
• $176,850,340 for reduced property values due to trespass
• $176,850,340 for loss of use and enjoyment.
• Plus punitive damages.
![Page 10: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Employment Torts
• Employer Liability for Actions of Employees– Negligent Supervision (sex)– Respondeat Superior (guns)
• Wrongful Termination (drugs)
![Page 11: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Negligent Supervision
• Plaintiff must prove four elements of negligence, including “duty.”
![Page 12: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Duty
• Premised on the employer’s ability to recognize
– an employee’s attributes of character or prior conduct
– that would create an undue risk of harm – to people the employee comes in contact
with during employment.
![Page 13: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Employee’s Acts Must Be “So Connected With the Time and Place”
that the Employer Knows the Harm May Result.
• No duty if sex assaults by employee in same location but at different time.
• Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445 (Colo. 2005).
![Page 14: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Impact
• The bar for establishing a negligent supervision claim is extremely high.
• Plaintiff must show that employer was aware of the exact harm that plaintiff suffered.
![Page 15: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Respondeat Superior(Vicarious Liability)
• Employer may be liable for employee’s torts committed during the course and scope of employment.
![Page 16: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Elements
• Plaintiff must establish:
– employer-employee relationship AND– tortious act occurred during course and
scope of employment
![Page 17: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
No Formal Employer-Employee Relationship Required If
Sufficient Control
• Is a cattle rancher liable for the shooting committed by his helper during a cattle drive?
• Did cattle rancher have actual control or the right to control helper?
• Colo. Compensation Ins. Auth. v. Jones, 2005 WL 1189843 (Colo. App. 2005), cert. denied.
![Page 18: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Impact
• Unlike Keller v. Koca, this case expands employer liability for the acts of employees.
• Plaintiffs proceeding under respondeat superior theory may fare better than those pursuing negligent supervision claims.
![Page 19: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
• A provision that permits termination of an at-will employment contract is unenforceable if it violates public policy.
![Page 20: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Public Policy Exception Does Not Apply to Employee’s Refusal
to Take Drug Test
• Employee claimed that she was terminated in violation of public policy because she stood up for her constitutional right to privacy.
• Slaughter v. John Elway Dodge, 107 P.3d 1165 (Colo. App. 2005).
![Page 21: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Impact
• Public policy exception to termination of at-will employment will be narrowly construed.
![Page 22: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Real Property and Eminent Domain
• Adverse Possession– The fence case– The cabin case
• Condemnation– “Public use” taking definition is expanded to
economic development.– RTD can pay less for Fastracks takings.
![Page 23: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Fence on Property Believed to Mark Boundary Creates Presumption of
Adverse Possession
• Smith buys property and puts fence delineating wrong property line.
• Welsch buys lot next to Smith and asks Smith to remove the fence. Smith removes fence but statutory period already expired.
• Welsch v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1284 (Colo. App. 2005).
![Page 24: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
After Title By Adverse Possession Only Abandonment Defeats Title
• No abandonment because Smith continued his adverse possession of the property by removing trees.
![Page 25: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Permissive Use Is Not An Affirmative Defense
• Evidence of permissive use rebuts a claim of adverse and hostile possession.
![Page 26: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
A Vendor-Vendee Exception to Adverse Possession Does Not Bar Claim Against Adjoining Parcel
• Vendor-Vendee Exception: Cannot claim adverse possession against property vendee contracted to buy.
• But, can claim adverse possession against adjacent property.
![Page 27: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Facts
• A conveys 120 acre property to B under installment purchase contract.
• While making payments, B splits property into three 40 acre parcels and conveys two parcels to C & D.
• C builds cabin that extends on parcel retained by B.
![Page 28: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Importance• Vendor-vendee rule precludes C from
adversely possessing the property it was purchasing from B.
• Rule does not preclude C from adversely possessing property not subject to the purchase contract.
• Sleeping Indian Ranch v. West Ridge Group, 119 P.3d 1062 (Colo. 2005).
![Page 29: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Condemnations
![Page 30: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Condemnations for Economic Gain Can Be A “Public Use”
• Private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.
• City condemns private property to develop a mixed use “urban village.”
• City of New London v. Kelo, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005).
![Page 31: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
No Proof of Reasonable Certainty Required
• No required showing that the expected public benefits from the taking would occur.
• Created a backlash, which might not have much of an effect in Colorado because of:– Arvada Urban Renewal Auth. v. Columbine
Prof. Plaza, 85 P.3d 1066 (Colo. 2004).
![Page 32: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Construction Law
• Economic Loss Rule• Application of CDARA’s statute of
limitations provision
![Page 33: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Economic Loss Rule
• Economic loss rule states that a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of a contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for the breach, unless there is an independent duty under tort law.
![Page 34: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Subcontractors Have an Independent Duty to Homeowners
• HOA sued subcontractors in tort for problems with construction of homes.
• A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II HOA, 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005).
![Page 35: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Impact
• Expanded liability for subcontractors.• Gives homeowners longer period of time to
sue.• Subsequent homeowners may sue because
no need for privity of contract.
![Page 36: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
CDARA Statute of Limitations
• CDARA provides the scheme for bringing claims against construction professionals.
• C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) provides that in construction defect actions, claims for contribution and indemnity “shall be brought” within ninety days after the claims arise “and not thereafter.”
![Page 37: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Contribution Claims Must Be Brought No Later than 90 Days
After Claim Arises• Defendant in a construction defect action had
cross-claimed against another defendant for contribution.
• CLPF-Parkridge One, LP v. Harwell Invs., Inc., 105 P.3d 658 (Colo. 2005).
![Page 38: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Impact
• In a construction defect action, all parties can be joined in the action at one time and all cross-claims can be resolved simultaneously with the underlying action.
![Page 39: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Amendment of Eminent Domain Statute C.R.S. § 38-1-114
• “Special benefits” from taking for highway project can offset damages (a) caused to remaining property and (b) up to 50% of property taken.
• Now RTD can offset damages for “special benefits” of Fastracks.
![Page 40: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Protest Sign On Highway Overpass Not Protected by the
First Amendment • Denver had an unwritten policy prohibiting
all expressive conduct on overpasses that are visible from traffic below.
• Faustin v. City & County of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005).
![Page 41: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Intellectual Property Law
![Page 42: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Technology Producer Can Be Liable for the Infringing Activities of Third Parties Using Its Products
• Twist on the Napster case.• Defendant Grokster’s free software allowed
Internet users to share copyrighted music and videos.
![Page 43: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Sony Safe Harbor Not Applicable
• Sony was not liable for third parties who used VCRs to illegally copy movies.
• Difference is “inducement theory.”
![Page 44: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Grokster Rule of Inducement
• Liable if use “clear expression or other steps to foster infringement” which
• Goes beyond “mere distribution with knowledge of third party action”
• Evidence shows “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct.”
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S.Ct. 2764 (2005).
![Page 45: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: 2005 Annual Survey Colorado Civil Law Victoria V. Johnson, Esq. Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. –Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081602/55165a8c550346c6758b5d5c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Conclusion