Colorado’s second-highest court directed a Prowers County judge last month to take a second look at whether a firetruck operator and the county itself can be held liable for a collision with a motorist.

Donald Williamson was driving through a green light in Lamar when he crashed into a firetruck operated by John Owens Jr. Afterward, Williamson sued Owens and the county for negligence.

The defendants invoked the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which broadly shields government entities and employees from lawsuits. There are exceptions, including for emergency vehicle operators who fail to follow the conditions outlined in the law. Those include slowing down and using lights or sirens.

District Court Judge Tarryn L. Johnson held a hearing to determine if the defendants were entitled to immunity. She believed Williamson had to clear a relatively low hurdle to show that Owens seemingly proceeded through the red light in violation of the conditions for immunity.

Determining outright if Owens complied with the law “does seem like it would usurp the jury’s power and the jury’s determination of the factual issue,” Johnson said. “This is not a mini-trial.”

She concluded that immunity did not apply and that Williamson’s lawsuit could proceed.

The defendants appealed, and a three-judge Court of Appeals panel found fault with how Johnson approached the immunity issue.

Judge Neeti V. Pawar wrote in the panel’s March 19 opinion that Johnson needed to definitively say whether Owens proceeded through the intersection in compliance with the conditions in state law.

“By failing to make this determination, the court relieved Williamson of his burden to prove his version of the disputed facts,” Pawar wrote.

She elaborated that Johnson had not acknowledged the evidence that the firetruck’s siren was blaring and had declined to consider photographs of the crash scene.

“As defense counsel argued, photographs of the accident scene showed how the collision occurred, including the relative speeds of the vehicles involved. They were therefore relevant to whether Owens sufficiently slowed down,” wrote Pawar. “By excluding relevant evidence, the court failed to fulfill its duty to resolve the parties’ factual disputes and to base its legal conclusion on a well-developed record.”

The panel directed Johnson to re-evaluate whether Owens’ operation of the firetruck complied with the immunity law’s requirements, after accounting for all relevant evidence.

The case is Williamson v. Owens et al.