 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davenport v. Community Corrections of Pikes Peak Region Inc.6/29/1998
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
EN BANC
We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals decision in Davenport v. Community Corrections of the Pikes Peak Region, Inc., 942 P.2d 1301 (Colo. App. 1997), to consider whether the court of appeals erred in concluding as a matter of law that a private community corrections facility has neither a statutory nor common law duty to protect an individual from the conduct of an offender sentenced to the facility. The court of appeals reversed a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident involving a community corrections resident. We affirm.
I.
Community Corrections of the Pikes Peak Region, Inc. (Pikes Peak), is a private non-profit corporation that operates a community corrections facility in Colorado Springs pursuant to a contract with the
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division of Criminal Justice of the Colorado Department of Public Safety. Offenders housed at Pikes Peak are required to maintain steady employment, undergo random drug and alcohol testing, pay rent on a weekly basis, and attend budgeting classes. Pikes Peak participants are only permitted to leave the facility for work, job searching, or pursuant to a valid curfew, weekend, church, overnight, or furlough pass.
On April 21, 1988, Fred Rutledge was sentenced directly to community corrections for eight years after being convicted of second degree burglary. As a condition of his sentence, Rutledge was ordered to undergo treatment for alcohol abuse. Rutledge was admitted to Pikes Peak on April 28, 1988. On several occasions during his eight and one-half month stay at Pikes Peak, Rutledge violated rules pertaining to the administration of the facility. Specifically, Rutledge (1) was late signing in; (2) failed to take antabuse on three occasions; (3) failed two drug tests; (4) twice tested positive for alcohol; and (5) was involved in a careless driving incident. Although these offenses were classified by Pikes Peak as major offenses which could, depending upon the severity and circumstances of the offense, result in notification to the sentencing Judge, the sentencing Judge was never notified.
On January 14, 1989, Rutledge was permitted to leave Pikes Peak on a weekend pass. Rutledge went to the house of Eric Davenport, a friend and former resident at Pikes Peak. At the house, Rutledge and Davenport began drinking beer. Later, they left in Rutledge's car, which Rutledge drove. After stopping at a liquor store, Rutledge drove at a high rate of speed and rolled the automobile. Davenport suffered permanent debilitating injuries in the accident. Rutledge was arrested and charged with vehicular assault, reckless driving, driving under the influence , driving with excessive alcohol content, driving with an expired temporary registration, and driving without compulsory insurance. Rutledge was subsequently terminated from the Pikes Peak program.
On July 13, 1990, Davenport sued Pikes Peak for negligent supervision of Rutledge. In responding to the complaint, Pikes Peak designated Rutledge as a non-party at fault pursuant to section 13-21-111.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987). On March 20, 1992, Pikes Peak filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Pikes Peak owed no legal duty to Davenport as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that "there is a duty upon entities such as [Pikes Peak] to exercise reasonable care to protect members of the public from harm caused by persons" in their custody.
Following a trial, the jury found Pikes Peak ninety percent at fault for Davenport's injuries and allocated the remaining ten
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|