 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gallegos v. City of Monte Vista5/28/1998
Appeal from the District Court of Rio Grande County
Honorable O. John Kuenhold, Judge
No. 96CV10
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
Division I
Plaintiff, Solomon E. Gallegos, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against defendant, the City of Monte Vista. We reverse and remand with directions.
On July 23, 1994, plaintiff was stopped by an officer of the Monte Vista Police Department for failing to stop at a posted stop sign. After completing an investigation, the officer determined that probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff for driving under the influence of alcohol.
According to plaintiff's complaint, while being transported to the police station, plaintiff informed the officer that he was a diabetic and needed insulin. The officer refused both this request and a subsequent request plaintiff made when he reached the police station.
At the police station, plaintiff told the officer that he would commit suicide if he was incarcerated. The officer then placed plaintiff in a jail cell without confiscating his shoes, belt, or other personal items. Approximately 20 minutes later, plaintiff attempted to commit suicide using his belt. The complaint further alleges that he suffered serious and permanent injuries.
On April 9, 1996, approximately 20 months after his attempted suicide, plaintiff brought this action naming only the City as a defendant. Plaintiff's first claim for relief was based upon the alleged negligence of the arresting officer in failing to take precautions in the jail concerning his health and safety. He also brought a second claim for relief based upon the negligent disclosure of medical information obtained by two other officers.
The City answered the complaint and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The City argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Section 13-80-103(1)(c), C.R.S. 1997, which addresses, inter alia, actions against police officers. The City also argued that plaintiff's second claim for relief, for negligent disclosure of medical information, was barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), Section 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1997.
The trial court granted the City's motion, finding that the one-year statute of limitations applied and barred plaintiff's claims against the City. The court alternatively found that plaintiff's second claim for relief was barred by the GIA. Plaintiff does not appeal this latter determination. Therefore, only the propriety of the trial court's ruling as to the first claim for relief is before us for review.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in determining that his complaint against the City was barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to actions against police officers. We agree.
§§ 13-80-102, C.R.S. 1997, provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter:
(h) All actions against any public or governmental entity or any employee of a public or governmental entity, except as otherwise provided in this section or section 13-80-103. . . .
As pertinent here, Section 13-80-103, C.R.S. 1997, provides that:
(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accr
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.
|
|