 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Regional Transportation District v. Lopez5/20/1996
EN BANC
We granted certiorari to review Lopez v. Regional Transportation District, 899 P.2d 254 (Colo. App. 1994). Jose Lopez brought this action against the Regional Transportation District (RTD) pursuant to the Colorado Government Immunity Act (CGIA), sections 24-10-101 to -120, 10A C.R.S. (1988 & 1992 Supp.). In his complaint, Lopez stated two causes of action against RTD, a negligence claim and a personal injury protection (PIP) claim under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (No- Fault Act), sections 10-4-701 to -725, 4A C.R.S. (1994 & 1995 Supp.). RTD moved to dismiss Lopez's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) on two grounds: (1) that Lopez had not provided timely notice of his negligence claim under sections 24-10-109(1) & (3), 10A C.R.S. (1988 & 1995 Supp.); and (2) that Lopez commenced his PIP claim prematurely in violation of section 24-10-109(6), 10A C.R.S. (1988). The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim under the CGIA. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Lopez had provided timely notice of his negligence claim and that his PIP claim should not have been dismissed as prematurely filed. We reverse the court of appeals on Lopez's negligence claim and remand that portion of the case to the court of appeals with instructions to send the case back to the trial court for further fact findings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the court of appeals on other grounds that Lopez's PIP claim should not have been dismissed.
I.
On June 16, 1993, Lopez filed a complaint against RTD in Denver District Court. Lopez sought past and future medical expenses, loss of income, and compensation for pain and suffering for injuries he allegedly sustained on October 14, 1992, when he disembarked from an RTD bus and lost his footing on a slippery substance on the steps of the bus. As a result of the slip, Lopez claimed to have suffered injuries to his head, neck, and back. In addition, Lopez sought compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages for RTD's failure to pay PIP benefits pursuant to the No-Fault Act. Lopez's complaint asserted that he filed timely notices of claim with RTD. Copies of his two notices of claim were attached to the complaint.
Under the CGIA, an individual seeking recourse against a public entity, such as RTD, must notify that entity of any claims against it within 180 days of discovery of the injury . An action cannot be commenced by the claimant until the public entity has denied the claim or until ninety days have elapsed from the filing of the notice. Subsections (1) and (6) of section 24-10- 109, 10A C.R.S. (1988 & 1995 Supp.), of the CGIA provide that:
(1) Any person claiming to have suffered an injury by a public entity or by an employee thereof while in the course of such employment, whether or not by a willful and wanton act or omission, shall file a written notice as provided in this section within one hundred and 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.
(6) No action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced until after the claimant who has filed timely notice pursuant to subsection (1) of this section has received notice from
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|