Opinion ID: 4644702
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Immunity Act

Text: Colorado’s Immunity Act provides the following limited sovereign immunity to public employees: A public employee shall be immune from liability in any claim for injury . . . which lies in tort or could lie in tort . . . and which arises out of an act or omission of such employee occurring during the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment unless the act or omission causing such injury was willful and wanton . . . . 7 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-118(2)(a) (emphasis added). Although the Act nowhere defines “willful and wanton,” Colorado’s courts have defined the term (discussed below). The Act also grants sovereign immunity to public entities: “A public entity shall be immune from liability in all claims for injury which lie in tort or could lie in tort . . . except as provided otherwise in this section.” Id. § 24-10-106(1). The section then lists nine exceptions, none of which applies here. Id. § 24-10-106(1)(a)–(i). “Because [the Immunity Act] derogates the common law, courts must strictly construe provisions that grant immunity, broadly construe the provisions that waive immunity, and strictly construe exceptions to waivers in favor of compensating victims.” Duke v. Gunnison Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 456 P.3d 38, 42 (Colo. App. 2019) (citing Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 453 (Colo. 2001); and then Dempsey v. Denver Police Dep’t, 353 P.3d 928, 931–32 (Colo. App. 2015)). Further, though the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that a public employee has waived the right to sovereign immunity, Gray v. Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth., 284 P.3d 191, 195 (Colo. App. 2012), “‘the burden is a relatively lenient one,’ as there is no presumption of sovereign immunity, and plaintiffs ‘should be afforded the reasonable inferences of [their] evidence.’” Duke, 456 P.3d at 44 (brackets in original) (quoting Tidwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 83 P.3d 75, 85–86 (Colo. 2003)).