The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20132993.tiffRECEIVED DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 1777 Sixth St Boulder CO 80302 (303) 441 3750 WELD CQLIN COMMISSION 0 COURT USE ONLY Plaintiff: John Smith vs. Defendants: Greeley Stampede, Weld County, City of Greeley, Weld County Sheriffs Office, Greeley Police Department Case Number: Division: Courtroom: Attorney: Plaintiff THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER M. ANDERSON Peter Michael Anderson, Esq., Atty. Reg. #: 033067 1320 Pearl Street, Suite 120, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone Number: 303 444 1505 Fax Number: Declined pursuant to C.R.C.P. 5(b) COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for a statement of claim against Defendants, City of Greeley, Weld County, Weld County Sheriff's Office, Greeley Police Department and Greeley Stampede, states and alleges as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, Defendant Greeley Stampede is and at all times relevant hereto an entity in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and at the time of the Incident alleged herein, had their offices at 600 N 14th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Weld County is and at all times relevant hereto a governmental entity in the State of Colorado and at the time of the Incident alleged herein, had their governing body located at 1402 N. 17th Ave., Greeley, CO 80631. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Greeley Police Department is and at all times relevant hereto a governmental entity in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and at the time of the Incident alleged herein, had their offices at 2875 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80634. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Greeley is and at all times relevant hereto a governmental entity in the City of Greeley, County of Weld, State of Colorado, and at the time of the Incident alleged herein, had their offices at 1100 Tenth St., Suite 401, Greeley, CO 80631. 5. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Colorado residing at 4202 Primrose Lane, CO 80620. RS Pof9-,3113 art;1/4 CA- P ili3/1 2013-2993 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Weld County Sheriff's Office is and at all times relevant hereto was a governmental entity in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and at the time of the Incident alleged herein, had their offices at 1950 "O" Street, Greeley, CO 80631. 7. The July 4, 2012 collision which is the subject matter of this action occurred in Greeley, Weld County, Colorado at the Intersection of N. Eleventh Avenue and H Street, Greeley, Weld County, Colorado (hereinafter, "the Intersection" or "the Premises"). 8. On July 4, 2012, at approximately 10:20 p.m., John Smith was driving his 2007 Harley- Davidson motorcycle northbound on N. Eleventh Ave., Greeley, Weld County, Colorado. 9. At the same time and place, Ms. Sendy Rodriguez was driving her 2004 Nissan Murano westbound on H Street, Greeley, Weld County, Colorado. 10. Ms. Rodriguez was stopped on H Street, in the designated left hand turn lane. 11. No cones, blockade, or other barricade was present blocking Ms. Rodriguez from turning left on Eleventh Avenue heading Southbound. 12. At the same time and place, there were no street lights at this intersection. 13. Ms. Rodriguez proceeded to turn left on Eleventh Avenue. 14. During the left hand turn on Eleventh Avenue, it became visible to Ms. Rodriguez that Eleventh Avenue was blocked, restricting travel of the Rodriguez vehicle Southbound on Eleventh Ave. 15. At the same time and place, there was no advance warning area in the left hand turn of H Street impeding Ms. Rodriguez's ability to turn left onto Eleventh Ave., causing an interference with the normal flow of traffic. 16. At the same time and place, there was no traffic safety device in the left hand turn of H Street impeding Ms. Rodriguez's ability to turn left onto Eleventh Ave., causing an interference with the normal flow of traffic. 17. At the same time and place, there was no warning Ms. Rodriguez of a road closure, causing an interference with the normal flow of traffic. 18. At the same time and place, Ms. Rodriguez was not directed from the normal path of travel to a new path of travel, thus creating a dangerous condition, as defined by CRS § 24-10-103 (hereinafter "dangerous condition.") 19. At the same time and place, Ms. Rodriguez had no recovery or buffer space available in the Intersection. 2 20. At the same time and place, there were no temporary lighting devices in the Intersection. 21. At the same time and place, there were no channelizing devices to establish a transition area for drivers in the Intersection. 22. At the same time and place, there was no human involvement concerning traffic control at the Intersection. 23. At the same time and place, as a result of the dangerous condition in the Intersection, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Smith's motorcycle collided (hereinafter, "the Incident"). 24. At the same time and place, a temporary traffic control plan (hereinafter "TTCP") existed for placement and maintenance on and around the Intersection for a planned special July 4th event. 25. At the same time and place, a temporary traffic control plan (hereinafter "TTCP") existed for placement and maintenance on and around the Intersection for the benefit of Defendant Greeley Stampede. 26. At the same time and place, the creation of a temporary traffic control zone (hereinafter "TTCZ") existed for a planned special July 4th event. 27. At the same time and place, the creation of a temporary traffic control zone (hereinafter "TTCZ") existed for the benefit of Defendant Greeley Stampede. 28. But for the pre -planned events at the Greeley Stampede, the TTCZ would not have been necessary and the TTCP would not have been in place. 29. At the same time and place, the TTCP called for traffic safety devices to be placed in the left turn lane of H Street. 30. At the same time and place, there were no traffic safety devices in the left turn lane on H Street. 31. At the same time and place, other traffic safety devices in place on Eleventh Ave. in the Intersection disrupted the normal flow of traffic. 32. At all times relevant hereto, the temporary traffic safety devices placed at the Intersection did not meet any of the requirements for proper temporary traffic safety devices in Colorado per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 33. At all times relevant hereto, a Weld County Sheriff's Deputy was present at the Intersection in his vehicle for several minutes prior to the Incident and upon information and belief, did not observe or warn of the dangerous condition. 3 34. Upon information and belief, Officer Annette Holloway of the Greeley Police Department took photographs. 35. The Plaintiff has given proper and timely notice to all Defendants pursuant to CRS §24-10- 101 et seq. and specifically pursuant to CRS §24-10-109, via hand delivery. 36. Under CRS § 24-10-106, Defendants immunity is waived. CRS § 24-10-106 (West 2010); Springer v. City and County of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000). 37. As a result of the Incident, Plaintiff suffered injuries, damages and losses, including but not limited to numerous surgeries, and the near complete amputation of his right leg. 38. Defendant Greeley Stampede, at all times relevant hereto, used the Premises where the Plaintiff was injured, for public use for a private event held for Defendant Greeley Stampede's benefit. 39. Upon information and believe, individuals working for the benefit of the Greeley Stampede were present at or near the Incident. 40. Defendant Greeley Stampede, at all times relevant here to, was legally responsible for the upkeep, maintenance, condition and operation of the Premises at or near the Incident as a direct result of its July 4, 2012 activities. 41. Defendant Greeley Stampede is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a legal entity in possession of and legally responsible pursuant to CRS §13-21-115 for the condition of the Premises where the Plaintiff was injured and for the management and control of such activities conducted and circumstances existing at or near the Premises. 42. For purposes of liability pursuant to CRS §13-21-115, the Greeley Stampede is and at all times relevant hereto, was an authorized agent legally responsible for the condition of the Premises and for the activities and circumstances existing on said Premises. 43. Defendant Greeley Stampede, and at all times relevant hereto, was a landowner pursuant to the provisions of CRS §13-21-115. 44. Defendant Greeley Stampede, at all times relevant hereto, had a non -delegable duty under the provisions of CRS §13-21-115 to provide reasonably safe Premises to its invitees, including Plaintiff, and to protect its invitees from all dangerous conditions at or near said Premises of which it knew or should have known. 45. Defendant Greeley Stampede, at all times relevant hereto, maintained dangerous conditions at or near the Intersection. 4 46. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the Plaintiff against said dangerous conditions of which it actually knew or should have known. 47. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede was negligent and unreasonably failed to act reasonably by failing to inspect and maintain the TTCP where the Incident occurred. 48. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede, failed to report the dangerous conditions at or near the Premises to any authorities. 49. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede unreasonably failed to eliminate and/or correct the dangerous conditions at or near the Premises that were reasonably foreseeable to cause injury. 50. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede unreasonably failed to warn of the dangerous conditions, which it actually knew or should have known existed at or near the Premises at the time of the Incident. 51. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede failed to use reasonable care to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of the foreseeability of injury to the public. 52. Said dangerous condition would not have occurred, but for the events being held by the Greeley Stampede on July 4, 2012. 53. In maintaining a dangerous condition on the Premises at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede was negligent. 54. In failing to correct or eliminate the dangerous condition on the Premises at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede was negligent. 55. In failing to warn the public of the dangerous condition on the Premises at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Greeley Stampede was negligent. 56. At all relevant times, the provisions of CRS § 42-4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 regarding the adoption of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" were in full force and effect. 57. Upon information and belief, the conduct of Defendants violated the provisions of CRS § 42- 4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 and the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" and therefore, Defendants are negligent per se. 58. The statutes were designed to protect drivers from the dangers associated with improper regulation, placement, inspection and maintenance of traffic control devices. Upon information and 5 belief, the Plaintiff is among the class of persons intended to be protected under these statutes. The harms suffered by Plaintiff are the type that was intended to be prevented by the statutes. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant Greeley Stampede, Plaintiff sustained injuries, damages and losses as specified herein. 60. Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County are, and at all times relevant here to were, legally responsible for the ownership, upkeep, maintenance, condition and operation of the Premises. 61. Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County, at all times relevant hereto, used the Premises where the Plaintiff was injured, for public use for purposes of waiver of immunity under CRS §24-10- 101 et. seg. 62. Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County are, and at all times relevant hereto were, legal entities responsible pursuant to CRS §13-21-115 for the maintenance of the property where the Plaintiff was injured. 63. For purposes of liability pursuant to CRS §13-21-115, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County are, and at all times relevant hereto were, authorized agents legally responsible for the condition of the Premises and for the activities and circumstances existing on the Premises. 64. Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County are, and at all times relevant hereto were, landowners pursuant to the provisions of CRS §13-21-115. 65. Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County, at all times relevant hereto, had a non - delegable duty under the provisions of CRS §13-21-115 to provide reasonably safe premises to their invitees and to protect their invitees from all dangerous conditions on said premises of which they knew or should have known. 66. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the Plaintiff against said dangerous condition of which they actually knew or should have known. 67. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County were negligent and failed to act reasonably by failing to implement, inspect and maintain the TTCP, which upon information and belief, was created by Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County. 68. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County unreasonably failed to warn of the dangerous conditions. 69. The Plaintiff, at all times relevant hereto, was an invitee within the meaning and effect of CRS §13-21-115. 6 70. At all times relevant hereto, a dangerous condition was created through the operation and maintenance of said public roadway by Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County for purposes of waiver of immunity under CRS § 10-24-103. 71. Sovereign immunity for Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County has been waived pursuant to CRS §24-10-106 (1)(e) and CRS §24-10-106 (1)(f) and the dangerous condition of the Intersection, which is maintained by Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County. 72. In maintaining a dangerous condition at the Intersection at all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County were negligent. 73. In failing to correct or eliminate the dangerous condition at the Intersection at all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County were negligent. 74. In failing to warn the public of the dangerous condition at the Intersection at all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County were negligent. 75. In failing to implement the TTCP at all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County were negligent. 76. In failing to inspect and maintain said TTCP at all times relevant hereto, Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County were negligent. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants City of Greeley and Weld County, Plaintiff sustained injuries, damages and losses as specified herein. 78. Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department are responsible for the acts complained of herein on the part of its employees by virtue of the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. 79. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department had a duty to exercise reasonable care in their control and/or management and/or maintenance and/or observation of the Intersection. 80. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department had a duty to observe the dangerous condition of the Intersection, eliminate the dangerous condition of the Intersection and/or warn the public of the dangerous condition of the Intersection. 81. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department had a duty to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and/or observing the Intersection. 82. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department had a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the Intersection. 7 83. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department had a duty to warn the public of dangerous conditions at the Intersection. 84. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department had a duty to eliminate and/or correct dangerous conditions at the Intersection. 85. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department breached their duties and acted negligently by not exercising reasonable care in inspecting and/or observing the Intersection. 86. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department breached their duties and acted negligently by not exercising reasonable care in maintaining the Intersection. 87. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department breached their duties and acted negligently by not warning the public of dangerous conditions at the Intersection. 88. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department breached their duties and acted negligently by not eliminating or correcting dangerous conditions at the Intersection. 89. At all times relevant hereto, sovereign immunity for Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department have been waived pursuant to CRS §24-10-106 (1)(e) and CRS §24- 10-106 (1)(f) through the dangerous condition of the Intersection operated and maintained by said public entity. 90. At all times relevant hereto, the Intersection was a public road for purposes of waiver of immunity under CRS §24-10-101 et. seq. 91. At all relevant times, the provisions of CRS § 42-4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 regarding the adoption of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" were in full force and effect. 92. Upon information and belief, the conduct of Defendants violated the provisions of CRS § 42- 4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 and the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" and therefore, Defendants are negligent per se. 93. The statutes were designed to protect drivers from the dangers associated with improper regulation, placement, inspection and maintenance of traffic control devices. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff is among the class of persons intended to be protected under these statutes. The harms suffered by Plaintiff are the type that was intended to be prevented by the statutes. 8 94. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants Weld County Sheriff's Office and Greeley Police Department, Plaintiff sustained injuries, damages and losses as specified herein. 95. At all relevant times, the provisions of CRS § 42-4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 regarding the adoption of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" ("MUTCD") were in full force and effect. 96. Plaintiff will fully detail the specific violations by Defendants of the MUTCD at the appropriate time. 97. The conduct of Defendants violated the provisions of CRS § 42-4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 and the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" and therefore, Defendants are negligent per se. 98. The CRS § 42-4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105 statutes were designed to protect drivers from the dangers associated with improper regulation, placement, inspection and maintenance of traffic control devices. 99. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff is among the class of persons intended to be protected under CRS § 42-4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105. 100. The harms suffered by Plaintiff are the type that was intended to be prevented by CRS § 42- 4-104 and CRS § 42-4-105. 101. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence and the unreasonable failure to protect the Plaintiff from said dangerous conditions of which Defendants knew or should have known, and for Defendant's failure to follow the temporary traffic control plan that caused the crash, the Plaintiff suffered and incurred the following injuries, damages and losses: a. Past lost wages and will incur future lost earning capacity; b. Physical and emotional pain and suffering, and will continue to incur and endure such pain and suffering in the future; c. Medical, hospital, therapeutic, prescription and other related health care expenses, and will continue to incur such expenses in the future; d. Suffered financial worry and distress, in the past and continuing in the future; e. Significant loss of enjoyment of life, and will suffer further loss of enjoyment of life in the future; f. Impairment of the quality of life, in the past and continuing in the future; 9 g. Permanently impaired with loss of limb and loss of function, physical impairment and non -economic losses; h. Economic losses including, expenses not paid, attorney's fees and interest expenses, in the past and continuing in the future; 102. The above injuries, damages, and losses entitle Plaintiff to recover general compensatory damages, special damages, statutory and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and statutory prejudgment interest in amounts not now precisely known, the exact amounts to be proven at or before the time of trial but which sum is in excess of the minimum dollar amount necessary to establish jurisdiction of this Court. LEAVE TO AMEND 103. Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend his Complaint to add or delete any claims or parties after discovery reveals the facts regarding same. This includes, but is not limited to, specifically identifying any other individuals or entities responsible for the dangerous condition and maintenance of the subject Premises. Respectfully submitted this 4th day of October, 2013. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Peter M. Anderson Peter M. Anderson, Reg. No. 33067 1320 Pearl St., Suite 120, Boulder CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 444-1505 10 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 1777 Sixth St Boulder CO 80302 (303) 4413750 • COURT USE ONLY • Plaintiff:John Smith vs. Defendants: Greeley Sta mpede, Weld County, City of Greeley, Weld County Sheriff's Office, Greeley Police Department Case Number: Division: Courtroom: Attorney: Plaintiff THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER M. ANDERSON Peter Michael Anderson, Esq., Atty. Reg. #: 033067 1320 Pearl Street, Suite 120, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone Number: 303 4441505 Fax Number: Declined pursuant to C.R.C.P. 5(b) SUMMONS To the Defendants named above: You are summoned and required to file with the clerk of this court an answer or other response to the attached complaint within twenty-one (21) days after this summons is served on you in the State of Colorado, or within thirty-five (35) days after this summons is served on you outside the State of Colorado. If you fail to file your answer or other response to the complaint in writing within the applicable time period, judgment by default may be entered against you by the court for the relief demanded in the complaint, without any further notice to you. The following documents are also served with this summons: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Dated this 4th day of October, 2013 By: /s/ signature on file Peter Michael Anderson, #033067 1320 Pearl St., # 120, Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 444-1505 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, CRCP, as amended. A copy of the complaint must be served with this summons. 1 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 1777 Sixth St Boulder CO 80302 (303) 4413750 • COURT USE ONLY • Plaintiff: John Smith vs. Defendants: Greeley Stampede, Weld County, City of Greeley, Weld County Sheriff's Office, Greeley Police Department Case Number: Division: Courtroom: Attorney: Plaintiff THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER M. ANDERSON Peter Michael Anderson, Esq., Atty. Reg. #: 033067 1320 Pearl Street, Suite 120, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone Number: 303 4441505 Fax Number: Declined pursuant to C.R.C.P. 5(b) NOTICE TO ELECT EXCLUSION FROM C.R.C.P. 16.1 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE Simplified Procedure under C.R.C.P. 16.1 is intended to be a less expensive and faster method of handling civil cases and applies where amount sought against each party is $100,000.00 or less, see C.R.C.P. 16.1(c). The Rule requires early and full disclosure of the information that each party has about the dispute and addresses what evidence will be introduced at trial. The party and attorney, if applicable, signing this Notice hereby elect to exclude this case from the Simplified Procedure under C.R.C.P. 16.1. This election is being filed with the Court no later than the time provided by C.R.C.P. 16.1(d). IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT ONCE THIS NOTICE OF EXCLUSION IS FILED WITH THE COURT, THE PROCEDURES OF C.R.C.P. 16, CASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL MANAGEMENT WILL APPLY TO THIS CASE. This Notice must be signed by the party and, if represented, by the attorney. Date: October 4, 2013 Ls/signature on file John Smith, Plaintiff Date: October 4, 2013 /s/signature on file Peter M. Anderson, Esq. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JDF 602 7/04 NOTICE TO ELECT EXCLUSION FROM C.RC.P. 16.1 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that on October 4, 2013 this NOTICE TO ELECT EXCLUSION FROM C.R.C.P. 16.1 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE was sent to be served upon the Defendants by serving it with the Complaint and Summons. /s/ signature on file Peter M. Anderson, Esq. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JDF 602 7/04 NOTICE TO ELECT EXCLUSION FROM C.RC.P. 16.1 SIMFLIFIED PROCEDURE Hello