The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday it will hear multiple cases that address when lawsuits may proceed if people are injured by dangerous conditions on government property, and what relief is available to tenants when the terms of their lease do not comply with state law.

At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to take up an appeal.

Although one of the cases arrived at the Supreme Court through the standard pathway — after the Court of Appeals issued a decision — the other dispute came by way of federal court, through a lesser-used mechanism permitting federal judges to ask the state Supreme Court to answer unsettled questions of Colorado law.

The dangerous condition

Krista Dozier was inside the Jefferson County courts and administration building in March 2019 when she slipped on a puddle of water and injured herself. Although employees in the building were aware of the spill and had requested a cleanup, Dozier’s fall happened within minutes of the request. 

To proceed, Dozier needed to overcome the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which broadly shields government entities from lawsuits with some exceptions. For instance, if a person is injured due to a “dangerous condition of any public building,” immunity does not apply.

District Court Judge Tamara S. Russell dismissed Dozier’s lawsuit, finding Dozier had not shown Jeffco had a reasonable opportunity to clean up the spill. Therefore, it was not negligent in its maintenance and there was no dangerous condition. Consequently, the county kept its immunity.

But a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals concluded Dozier did not yet need to show the county had enough time to respond to the water spill and acted negligently with its delay. Instead, the allegation that her injuries were caused by Jeffco’s failure to address the dangerous condition was sufficient for the case to proceed.

The county appealed its loss of immunity to the Supreme Court, taking issue with a specific statement from the Court of Appeals — that the reasonableness of a government entity’s response to a dangerous condition is not relevant to whether a judge can hear the case to begin with.

“Without negligence by the County, there cannot be a ‘dangerous condition,'” the Jeffco County Attorney’s Office insisted.

The Supreme Court agreed to answer whether plaintiffs must demonstrate a government entity acted unreasonably in order to proceed with their dangerous condition lawsuit and, relatedly, whether Dozier’s allegations were enough to show Jeffco’s actions were responsible for her injuries.

The case is Jefferson County v. Dozier.

The Landlord Tenant Act

In 2023, two sets of tenants filed a proposed class action lawsuit against their landlord, Pathlight Property Management, alleging violations of state law. The plaintiffs argued their leases were contrary to the Colorado Landlord Tenant Act by improperly shifting the burdens of maintenance to the tenants. Further, they claimed Pathlight’s leases also violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by including provisions that were misleading or otherwise not allowed by state law.

Pathlight moved to dismiss those claims, arguing there could not be a consumer protection violation because all of the allegedly problematic lease terms were disclosed to tenants. Further, it contended the plaintiffs were arguing an unsupported legal theory that their leases alone could violate the Landlord Tenant Act even if their units otherwise met the standards for habitability.

“To protect both tenants and landlords, the legislature further determined that suits for damages and rent refunds are available, but only for actual habitability problems, and only if the tenant has given the landlord written notice and a chance to cure the problem,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “Instead, according to Plaintiffs, the existence of the ineffective terms alone entitles a tenant to damages or a rent refund.”

On May 7, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico formally asked the state Supreme Court to address whether the plaintiffs had viable claims after all, noting Colorado’s appellate courts had never addressed the question.

That ambiguity, combined with the potentially large number of tenants affected, is “such that I am uncomfortable resolving the issue absent further guidance,” Domenico wrote.

The Supreme Court agreed to take the case. Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright and Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter did not participate in the consideration.

The case is Curran et al. v. Home Partners Holdings LLC.