Wyle v. Skiwatch Condominium, 10th Cir. (2006)
Wyle v. Skiwatch Condominium, 10th Cir. (2006)
Wyle v. Skiwatch Condominium, 10th Cir. (2006)
June 9, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
No. 04-1545
(D.C. No. 02-B-729 (CBS))
(D . Colo.)
Defendants-Appellees.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff M itchell Leland W yle, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from
the district courts order granting defendants summary judgment motions and
denying M r. W yles motions for summary judgment and judgment on the
pleadings. W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.
The district court detailed the facts of this case and we restate them here
only as is necessary to our disposition. On April 15, 2000, a fire broke out in an
electrical closet at the Skiwatch condominium complex in Breckenridge,
Colorado. 1 At that time, M r. W yle was sleeping in a Skiwatch condominium he
had rented for his vacation in Breckenridge. He allegedly suffered various
injuries as a result of the fire. Invoking diversity jurisdiction, M r. W yle filed suit
for negligence and breach of contract against the Skiwatch Condominium
Corporation and Skiwatch Condominium Association (Skiwatch), Eric and Ruth
Odens, and Roman and Olha Nowakiwsky.
The district court concluded that Colorados premises liability statute,
Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-21-115, is the exclusive remedy against a landowner in
Colorado for injuries occurring on the landowners property. Finding each of the
defendants to be landowners, the district court next concluded that M r. W yles
breach-of-contract claim is obviated by the exclusivity of the premises-liability
statute. Aplees. Jt. Supp. App. at 11. After thoroughly considering the
1
W e note that the district court made a typographical error in the order
appealed from when it, on several occasions, stated the fire occurred on
April 11, 2000.
-2-
Vigil, 103 P.3d at 331; see Wilson, 124 P.3d at 842 ([b]ecause the premises
liability statute is the exclusive remedy under which plaintiffs may recover, we
need not address plaintiffs other theories of liability strict liability and civil
conspiracy); Sweeney v. United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc., 119 P.3d 538,
540-41 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005) (observing exclusivity of premises liability statute
and affirming dismissal of plaintiffs claims for breach of contract and negligent
breach of contract), cert. denied, 2005 W L 2181649 (Colo. Sept. 12, 2005).
Third, M r. W yle asserts the district court erroneously ignored his proof
that the defendants had both actual and constructive knowledge of the dangers to
which they were subjecting their tenants. Aplt. Opening Br. at 32. W e are not
persuaded. Having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable
law , we concur with the district courts conclusion that
no reasonable jury could find [the defendants] had actual or
constructive knowledge of the condition of the electrical system
generally, or of the electrical box with the smashed copper pipe in
place of a fuse that resulted in the April 15, 2000 fire . . . .
Consequently, [they] could not be found to have breached any duty
to use reasonable care to protect against such a danger.
Aplees. Jt. Supp. App. at 14-15.
Fourth, M r. W yle asserts the district court erroneously denied his Rule
12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Odens did not respond to
his summary judgment motion within 20 days, as required by D. Colo. Civ. R.
-5-
M r. W yle also contends the Odens were at fault for not timely responding
to his Rule 12(c) motion. But, significantly, the district court in this case entered
judgment for defendants before the Odenss response to M r. W yles Rule 12(c)
motion was even due.
-6-
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRM ED. All pending motions are
D EN IED .
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-7-