T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doct r i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel
. I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R
. 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

L E O N I D D M I T R U K , A dm i ni s t r at orof t he Est at e of A l exande rB ugay chuk, d e c e a s e d ; YE L E NA B UGAYC HUK, an i ndi vi dual ; N A T A L I A M E L N I K , an i n d i v i d u a l ; I RI NA MOROZ OV, Per s onal l yand as A dm i ni s t r at orof t he E s t at e of Y evgeni yM or ozov, dece as ed and as G uar di an forSar a M or ozov a m ino r an d E lean n a M o roz o v a m ino r, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 06- 1188 G E O R G E A N D S O N S ’ R E P A IR S H O P , IN C
. , D
. B
. A
. “G E O R G E ’S TOWI NG; ” a n d GEORGE ROS LE R, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D
. C
. N o . 0 3
- c v - 2 3 5 5
- R P M) (D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efo re O ’B R I E N , B A L D O C K , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.
Pl ai nt i ffs br oughtt hi s negl i gence act i on aft erthei rr el at i ves , Y evgeny M or ozov and A l exande rB ugay chuk, w er e ki l l ed w hen t hei rvehi cl e cr as hed i nt o t he back of a semi
- t ruck parked on an e xi tr amp al ong I nt er s t at e 70 i n C ol or ado. T he2

di s t r i c tc ou r tgr a nt e d Defe nd a nt s ’ mot i on fo rs umm a r yj ud gmen ton Pl a i nti ffs’
c laim s. P lain tiffs n o w a p p e a l th a t ju d g m e n t. W e e x e rc is e ju r is d ic tio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. A ft ers tud y ing the br i efs and the r ecor d, and hea r i ng or al
ar gum ent , w e affi r m t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s j udgm ent beca us e Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr es ent
s uffi ci entevi dence of pr oxi m at e ca us e. I. O n t he morni ng of N ovember 26, 2001, an A ngel E xpr es s s emi
- t ruck Jor ge L a g e w a s d riv in g b e c a m e stu c k in th e sn o w o n th e e a stb o u n d sid e o f In ter sta te 7 0 in
eas t e r n Col o r a d o . Col o r a d o Hi g h way Pa t r o l c a l l e d Defe n d a n t Geo r g e a nd Sons R epai rShop, s eeki ng a t ow - t ruck t o pul l t he A ngel E xpr es s s emi
- t ruck back ont o t he
ro a d . D e fe n d a n t G e o rg e R o sle r re sp o n d e d , h o o k e d u p h is to w -tru c k to th e se m it ruck, and pul l ed i tback ont o t he pave m ent . R os l ert hen unhooked the t ow - t ruck and
as ked La g e t o fo l l o w h i m t o t h e n e x t e x i t t o s e t t l e t h e b i l l
. Th e t wo t ru c ks t r avel ed
e a s t b o u n d o n I n t e r s t a t e 7 0 a p p r o x i ma t e l yo n e mi l e , a n d t h e n e x i t e d o u to f t h e t wo
m ai n l anes of t r avel on I nt er s t at e 70, m er gi ng i nt o a thi rd exi tl ane. T he exi tl ane,
w hi ch l ed onl yt o pas tur e l and, w as s now packe d. T he t w o t rucks came t o a s t op, t he t ow - t ruck i n t he fr ontand t he A ngel E x p res s di r ect l ybehi nd t he t ow - t ruck, as far rig h t in th e e x it l a n e a s p o ss ib le w ith o u t g o in g in to th e d it c h
. B o th tru c k s h a d th e ir haza r d l i ght s fl as hi ng, but nei t her dr i ver pl ace d w ar ni ng t r i angl es out on t he hi ghw ay b e s id e o r b e h in d th e ir v e h ic le s . R os l er s t ay ed i n hi s t ow - t ruck w hi l e L age t el ephoned hi s companyt o arr ange3

forpaym ent . A few m inu tes aft ert he trucks came t o a s t op, a B udget
- R ent - A
- V an ( a s m al l m ovi ng van) , dr i ven by Y ev g en y M or ozov s l amm ed i nt o t he bac k of t he
se m i-tru c k . P o lice d e ter m in e d M o ro z o v d id n o t b ra k e o r o th e rw ise a ttem p t to a v o id t he A ngel Ex p r e s s t ru c k
. Al s o , p o l i c e e s t i ma t e s i n d i c a t e M o r o z o v was t r a v e l i n g at l e a s t 4 3 m . p . h
. , a h i g h r a t e o f s p e e d fo rt h e r o a d c o n d i t i o n s . M o r o z o v d i e d i n s t a n t l y. H is pa ssen g er, A lexa n d er B u g ay ch u k , d ied s ev era l ho u rs l ater. P lain tiffs, M o ro z o v a n d B u g y c h u k ’s fa m ilym e m b e rs a n d e sta te adm i nis trat ors, fi r s tfi l ed s ui tforw r ongful death and per s onal i nj ur i es a g ains tA ngel E xpr es s and J or ge L age i n W as hi ngt on s t at e court . W hi l e thatact i on w as pendi ng, Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed
su it ag a in st R o sle r a n d G e o rg e a n d S o n s in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt in C ol or ado. Pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m ed R os l er w as negl i gent i n fai l i ng t o p lace t r i angul ar
w ar ni ng devi ces behi nd t he s t opped t rucks
. Pl ai nt i ffs eventual l yadded Lage a nd A ngel E xpr es s as D efe ndant s i n t he C ol or ado act i on. Pl ai nt i ffs s ubs equent l ys et t l ed t he W as hi ngt on s t at e s ui tw i t h L age a nd A n g el E xpr es s and di s m i s s ed t hem as defe ndant s i n t he C ol or ado ac t i on, l eavi ng onl yt he cl ai m s agai ns tR os l erand G eor ge
a n d S o n s. M e a n w h il e , B u g a y c h u k ’s h e irs a n d th e a d m in istra to r o f h is e sta te ( Pl ai nt i ffs Y el ena Bugay chuk, N at al i a M el ni k and Leoni d D m i t ruk) r ecove r ed fr om B udget V an R ent al ’ s i ns ur ance company under t he t heory t hat M or ozov w as
re s p o n s ib le fo r t h e a c c i d e n t . I n s o d o in g , th e s e P la in tiffs s ig n e d a “ R e le a s e ,” rel easi ng M orozov ’s est at e, B ud get, t he insur ance c om pan y , “and al l otherpersons, fi rm s, corporat i on s, associ at i on s and p artnershi ps” from anyfutur e cl ai m s.4

D efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on fors um m ar yj udgm entar gui ng t heyw er e not
re sp o n sib le fo r th e a c c id e n t, o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , P lain tiffs’ W a sh in g to n s ta te l aw s ui tact ed as a bart o t hei rC ol or ado l aw s ui ti nas m uch as C ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 2 1 -2 0 3 (1 ) p e rm its o n lyo n e w ro n g f u l d e a th a c tio n o f

a n y o n e d e c e d e n t. D e fe n d a n ts al s o ar gued Pl ai nt i ffs Y el ena Bugay chuk, N at al i a M el ni k, and Leoni d D m i t ruk
r el eased theircl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant s w hen t heys i gned the “Rel eas e” a ft er set t l i ng w i t h B ud get V an R ental ’s i nsurance co m pan y . P l ai nti ffs fi l ed a crossm o tio n fo r p a rtial s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. P lai n tiffs a rg u e d D e fe n d a n ts fa ilu re to compl yw i t h C ol o. R ev. St at . § 42- 4- 230 and a s i m i l arfede r al r egul at i on, w hi ch requ i re pl acem ent of w arni ng t ri ang l es behind v ehicl es parked along highw ay s,
c o n stitu ted n e g lig e n c e p e r se . T h e d istric t co u rt a g re e d w ith D e fe n d a n ts in a ll
r es pect s , gr ant ed t hei rm ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm entand deni ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on fo r p a rt ia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. II. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s um m ar yj udg m entor derde novo, “us i ng t he
s ame st andar ds appl i ed byt he di s t ri ct c o u r t . ” St overv. M ar t i nez, 382 F. 3d 1064, 10 70 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ). E ssent i al l y , t he inquiryi s “w hethert he ev i den ce present s a
s uffi ci entdi s agr eementt o r equi r e s ubm i s s i on t o a j ur yor w hetheri ti s s o one- s i ded th a t o n e p a rt ym u s t p re v a il a s a m a tte r o f l a w . ” A n d e r s o n v . L ib e rt yL o b b y , In c ., 477 U
. S. 242, 251- 52 ( 1986)
. T hi s i s a di ver s i t ycas e and the par t i es agr ee Col or adoT he par t i es di s agr ee a boutw hetherW as hi ngt on orC ol or ado l aw appl i es 1 a s to th e ru les o f

re c o v e ry , inc lu d in g w h e th e r C o lo ra d o ’s w ro n g f u l d e a th sta tu te p roh ibit s m u lt iple w ron g fu l dea th ac ti o n s an d w h ethe r pu n it ive d am ag es a re avai l abl e t o Pl ai nt i ffs
. W e nee d notr eac h t hes e i s s ues i n l i ghtof ourconcl us i on t hatPl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence of pr oxi m at e ca us e. 5 neg l i gen ce l aw go verns t he li abil i t yaspect of P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s. 1

A. T o s ucce ed i n a negl i gence act i on i n C ol or ado, a pl ai nt i ff musts how t he exi s t ence of a dutyon t he par t o f the defendant ; a br eac h of t hatdut y ; a ca us al
connec t i on bet w een defe ndant ’ s br eac h and pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur y ; and i nj ur yt o t he pl ai nt i ff. O l i verv. A m i t yM ut . I r r i gat i on C o. , 994 P. 2d 495, 497 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ). P lain tiffs a lleg e R o sle r’s fa ilu re to p lac e w a rn in g trian g les b e h in d h is v e h icle
as r equi r ed byC ol or ado l aw and fede r al hi ghw ay r egul at i ons , es t abl i s hes negl i gence . I n par t i cul ar , Pl ai nt i ffs char ge D efe ndant s w i t h vi ol at i ng the fol l ow i ng C ol or ado
s t atut e: [W ] heneve ra mot orvehi cl e . . . i s s t opped upon t he tr avel ed por t i on of a hi ghw ayort he s houl derof a hi ghw ayforanycaus e ot hert han nec essa ry tr aff

i c s t ops , t he dr i vers hal l , as s oon as pos s i bl e, buti n any eventw i t hi n t en mi nut es, pl ace t he bi di r ect i onal emer gencyr efl ect i ve tr iang les i n the fo ll o w ing m an n er: a) O ne att he t r aff

i c s i de of the s t opped ve h icl e, w i t hi n t en fe etof t he fr ontorr earof t he vehi cl e; b) O ne ata di s t ance of appr oxi m at el yone hundr ed fe etfr om t he s t opped vehi cl e i n t he cent er of t he tr aff i c l ane ors houl deroccupi ed by t he vehi cl e and in the di r ect i on of t he tr aff i c appr oachi ng i n t hatl ane;I n addi t i on t o t hi s rul i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeci ded C ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 2 2 1 -2 0 3 b a rre d P lain tiffs f ro m b rin g in g a se c o n d w ro n g f u l d e a th a c tio n in C o l o r a d o a s t h e y a l r e a d y b r o u g h ta s i m i l a ra c t i o n i n W a s h i n g t o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y, t he di s t r i ctcour tbr oadl yr ead the “Rel eas e, ” s i gned byB ugay chuk’ s hei r s w hen t heys et t l ed w i t h B udgetV an R ent al ’ s i ns ur ance company , t o baral l s ubs equent cl ai m s forr ecove r yforB ugay chuk’ s death. L i ke the i s s ues s ur r oundi ng t he par t i es ’ di s agr eementovert he rul es of r ecove r y , s ee s upr a n. 1, w e nee d notr eac h t hese i ssues because w e agree w i t h the di stri ctcou rt ’s proxim at e cause an al y si s. 6 and c) O ne at a di s t ance of appr oxi m at el y one hundr ed fe etfr om t he s t opped v e h icle in th e o p p o site d ire c tio n f ro m th o se p lac e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith p a ra g ra p h s (a ) a n d (b ) o f th is s u b se c tio n (3 ) in th e c e n ter o f th e tra ffic la n e o r s h o u ld e r o c c u p ie d b yth e v e h ic le [ .] C ol o. R ev. St at . § 42- 4- 230( 3)
. Pl ai nt i ffs al s o all ege D efe ndant s vi ol at ed a s i m i l ar fe d e ra l re g u latio n re q u irin g c o m m e rc ial m o to r ve h icle s en g a g e d in in te r sta te
comm er ce t o pl ace w ar ni ng devi ce s u p to 500 feetfr om a s t opped vehi cl e. See 49 C .F .R § 3 9 2 .2 2
. In g ran ti n g D efen d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m aryju d g m e n t, the d istri ct co u rt det er m i ned not hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t ed abs ence of t he w ar ni ng t r i angl es behi nd t he t rucks caused the col l i s i on. D efe ndant s ar gued bel ow , and now on appea l , t hat 2 t heycom pli ed w i t h C olo. R ev . S tat. § 4 2-4-230 becau se t he acc i den toccu rr ed les s t han ten m i nut es aft erR os l erand t he A ngel E xpr es s t ruck ca m e t o a s t op. D efe ndant s al s o ar gue t heyw er e underno obl i g ati o n to com pl yw i t h t he fe der al
r e g u l a t i o n b e c a u s e Ge o r g e a n d S o n s i s n o te n g a g e d i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mm e r c e . As demonst r at ed bel ow , w e need not det er m i ne w hether D efe ndant s vi ol at ed C ol o. R ev.7

St at . § 42- 4- 230 orw het herD efe ndant s w er e obl i ged t o co m pl yw i t h t he fe der al
r egul at i on. B. U nde rCol o r a d o l a w, v i o l a t i o n o f a s t a tu t e , o r d i n a n c e , o rr e g u l a t i o n a d o pt ed fort he publ i c’ s s afe t ym aybe negl i gence pers e. I n H ageman v. T SI , I nc. , 786 P. 2d 452, 453- 454 ( C ol o. A pp. 1989) , t he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s s t at ed: V i ol at i on of a s t atut e oro rdin an ce adopt ed fort he publ i c’ s s afe t ym ay b e n e g lig e n c e p e r se a n d e sta b lish th e v io lato r’s c iv il l iab ili tyfo r a ll d a m a g e s p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d t h e r e b y. B e fo r e t h e d o c tr i n e c a n a p p l y, t he i nj ur ed par t ym us t s how t hat he or she i s a m ember of t he cl as s t hat t he s t atut e oror di nance w as i nt ended t o protec t , t hatt he i nj ur i es s uffe r ed w er e of the ki nd t he s t atut e w as enac t ed t o pr event , and that the s tatu te o r ord inan ce p resc ri b es o r pro scribe s sp ec ifi c c o n d u ct. If t hes e cr i t er i a ar e met , t he l egi s l at i on es t abl i s hes t he s t andar d of conduc t o f a re as onabl e per s on, s ubj ecti n s om e ca s es t o t he vi ol at o r’s aff i r m at i ve defe ns e t hat compl i ance w as i m pos s i bl e or w o u ld h ave c re a te d a g re a te r r is k o f d a n g e r o r i nju ry. E ven i f the vi ol at i on of a s t atut e s uppor t s a negl i gence pers e cl ai m , t he pl ai nt i ff
m ustst i l l show t he d efen dan t ’s ne g l i gen ce w as t he cau se of t he p l ai nti ff’s i njur i es. L om bar d v. C ol o. O ut door E duc. C t r . , I nc. , - - P. 3d
- - , 2007 W L 177686, at *4 ( C ol o. A pp. J anuary25, 2007) ( not i ng t hatpl ai nt i ffs al l egi ng negl i gence pers e musts how t hatdefe ndant ’ s s t atut or yvi ol at i on pr o x im at el ycaus ed the i nj ur i es ati s s ue)
. H er e,
e v e n a s s u mi n g De fe n d a n t s v i o l a t e d Co l o . Re v . S t a t . § 4 2
- 4
- 2 3 0 a nd 49 C. F
. R § 392. 22, and s uch vi ol at i ons cons t i tut ed negl i gence pers e, Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr es ent
e v id e n c e th a t s u c h v io la tio n s w e re th e p ro x im a te c a u s e o f th e a c c id e n t. Pl ai n t i ffs d o n o t c i t e t o i n s t a n c e s i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h e yr ai s ed a8

qu est i on of factas t o th e p ro xim at e cause o f t he acc i den t ; i nst ead, theyi nsi st pr oxi m at e ca us e i s an i s s ue for t he j ur y t o deci de, not a ques t i on of l aw fort he j udge t o deci de ats um m ary jud g m en t. A s a gene r al rul e, Pl ai nt i ffs ar e corr ectand the q u e s t i o n o f

p r o x i m a t e c a u s e i n a n e g l i g e n c e c a s e i s o n e o f fa c tfo rt h e j u r y. B ann i st er v. N ob l e, 81 2 F. 2d 12 65 , 12 67 (10t h C i r. 19 87 ). B ut, t he p roxi m at e cause
o f a n inju ryb e c o m e s a q u e stio n o f law “ w h e re th e e v id e n c e to g e th e r w ith a ll i nfer ence s w hi ch maybe pr oper l ydeduce d t her efr om i s i ns uffi ci entt o s how a ca us al
connec t i on b etw een t he al l eged w r ong and t he i nj ur y . I d. ( quot i ng G at es v. U ni t ed S tate s, 7 0 7 F .2 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 )); se e a lso Jo n e s v . Je ffe rso n C o u n ty School D i s t . , 392 P. 2d 165, 167 ( C ol o. 1964) ( w hen the fa ct s ar e und ispu t ed and
r eas onabl e mi nds can dr aw butone i nfer ence fro m the m , t hen t he ques t i on of pr oxi m at e ca us e i s one of l aw t o be dec i ded byt he cour t )
. I n ot herw or ds , t o s ur vi ve
s um m a r yj u d g me n t , t h e p a r t yb e a r i n g t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f a tt r i a l o n a d i s p o s i t i ve i s s ue mustgo bey ond t he pl eadi ngs and desi gnat e s peci fi c fa ct s s o as t o m ake a
s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he exi s t ence , as a t r i abl e i s s ue, o f an el ement
es s ent i al t o t hatpar t y ’ s cas e. See M cK ni ghtv. K i m ber l yC lark C orp. , 149 F. 3d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 8 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). W e agr ee wi t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t Pl a i n t i ffs fa i l e d t o s h o w t h e a b s e n c e of t he w ar ni ng t r i angl es pr oxi m at el ycaus ed the col l i s i on. T he undi s put ed fa ct s r evea l that N o v em b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 w as a clea r d ay , an d b o th tru ck s h ad their em erg en cyh az ard l i ght s fl as hi ng. T r ooperJ as on B andy , t he s t at e pol i ce offi cerw h o resp o n d ed t o t he9

acc i dent , t es t i fi ed t hatm inu te s befor e the ac ci denthe dr ove pas tt he t rucks s i t t i ng on t he exi tr amp and he coul d eas i l ys ee them. T he trucks w er e pul l ed off i nt o t he exi tl ane ort he exi tr amp and not i n t he mai n t w o l anes o f eas tbound t r avel on t he i nt er s t at e. D es pi t e cl earvi s i bi l i t y , t he di s pl ayof haza r d l i ght s and t he pl ace m entof t he t rucks off the t r avel ed por t i on of t he hi ghw ay , M or ozov i nexpl i cabl ys l amm ed in to th e re a r of th e se m i-tru c k w ith o u t slo w in g d o w n a n d w ith o u t sw e rv in g to a v o id it. B ased on t hes e undi s put ed fa ct s , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatnot hi ng
s ugges t s pl ace m entof t he t r i angl es w oul d have pr event ed the col l i s i on. I n ot her
w or ds , abs ol ut el ynot hing in the r ecor d s ugges t s R os l er ’ s fai l ur e t o putoutt he
w ar ni ng t r i angl es w as t he pr oxi m at e ca us e of the ac ci dent
. B eca us e P l ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence t hat D efe ndant s caus ed t he acci dent , an es s ent i al el ement of th e ir c la im , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in th is c a s e . AF F I RMED
. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

B obbyR
. B al dock U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge