The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will decide whether injured plaintiffs do not have to strictly comply with the legal deadline for notifying the government if a public entity’s conduct makes it impossible to timely identify who should be sued.

At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to hear a case on appeal.

On Aug. 26, 2021, Jaimi J. Mostellar tripped and fell in Manitou Springs on the base of a bus stop sign that had been removed. One hundred thirty-one days later, her lawyer notified Manitou Springs of the potential injury claim, within the 182-day deadline state law requires.

However, it was not until April 2023 — 600 days after the trip-and-fall — that Manitou Springs disclosed the existence of an intergovernmental agreement making Colorado Springs, not Manitou Springs, responsible for the bus stop sign.

Mostellar then sued Colorado Springs, prompting the city to raise a single argument: the lawsuit was barred because more than 182 days had gone by.

El Paso County District Court Judge Eric Bentley initially refused to dismiss the lawsuit. He acknowledged case law was “not 100% clear,” but he ultimately believed the 182-day clock did not begin to run until Mostellar learned of Colorado Springs’ potential responsibility for her injuries.

The city appealed the decision. A three-judge Court of Appeals panel expressed discomfort during oral arguments at the notion that Mostellar would never have her day in court based on Manitou Springs’ belated revelation.

“How would a plaintiff in her circumstances have any idea about the existence of an intergovernmental agreement like that?” asked Judge Katharine E. Lum. “What’s to stop municipalities from trying to play hide-the-ball so that a plaintiff isn’t able to get notice to the correct entity in time?”

Ultimately, the panel determined the text of the law and Colorado Supreme Court precedent meant that Mostellar had to alert Colorado Springs within 182 days of her injury, period.

Judge Rebecca R. Freyre wrote separately to air her concern that government entities can “manipulate” the 182-day deadline by withholding relevant information. She suggested the legislature “consider statutory modifications” to prevent Mostellar’s situation from repeating.

“The city’s delay made it impossible for her to comply,” Freyre wrote.

Mostellar then turned to the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeals’ decision “invites abuse by municipalities with intergovernmental agreements to catch the unwary and lead to the dismissal of claims that otherwise have been properly made.”

The court agreed to examine whether Mostellar’s window to notify Colorado Springs of her claim did not actually begin until she learned of the city’s potential involvement, and also whether plaintiffs in Mostellar’s shoes do not need to strictly comply when the government withholds key information.

The case is Mostellar v. City of Colorado Springs.