Bernard E. Sandoval v. City of Colorado Springs

── Bernard E. Sandoval v. City of Colorado Springs ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 34 Bernard E. Sandoval, Petitioner v. City of Colorado Springs Respondent No. 24SC778 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc May 26, 2026           Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 24CA198           Attorneys for Petitioner:           Ramos Law Brian Hugen           Northglenn, Colorado           Attorneys for Respondent:           Marc Smith, Acting Colorado Springs City Attorney           W. Erik Lamphere, Division Chief           Colorado Springs, Colorado 2           JUSTICE BOATRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE GABRIEL, JUSTICE SAMOUR, JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined.           OPINION 3           BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE.          ¶1 As Bernard E. Sandoval was driving in Colorado Springs, he approached an intersection where his traffic signal was inoperative. After stopping at the unilluminated light and treating the intersection as a four-way stop, Sandoval entered the intersection, not realizing that the crossing lane had a green light. Corey Kinzy, traveling in that lane, drove through the intersection, striking Sandoval's car.          ¶2 Sandoval sued the City of Colorado Springs for negligence. In response, Colorado Springs moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act ("CGIA"). The CGIA typically immunizes public entities from tort claims and liabilities. § 24-10-106(1), C.R.S. (2025). However, a public entity waives this immunity when it "fail[s] to repair a traffic control signal on which conflicting directions are displayed," and the failure "cause[s]" a "dangerous condition." § 24-10-106(1)(d)(II). Colorado Springs argued that the traffic signals were not "conflicting" at the time of the collision, meaning it had not waived sovereign immunity under the CGIA. The district court denied the motion, finding that "the traffic signals were not properly functioning and displayed conflicting signals to drivers approaching the intersection." 4          ¶3 Colorado Springs appealed, and a division of the court of appeals reversed. Sandoval v. City of Colo. Springs, No. 24CA198, ¶ 1 (Oct. 31, 2024). The division held that the signals were not conflicting because Sandoval could have stopped at the inoperative light and only proceeded when safe, while Kinzy could have driven through his operative, green light. Id. at ¶ 15. It rejected Sandoval's argument that he permissibly treated the intersection as a four-way stop, noting instead that applicable traffic codes require a driver to treat an inoperative traffic signal "as a stop sign and yield to vehicles in or approaching the intersection." Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. We granted Sandoval's petition for certiorari review.[1]          ¶4 We hold that under the circumstances, the traffic control signals displayed conflicting directions, causing a dangerous condition. As a result, Colorado Springs waived its sovereign immunity under the CGIA. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.          I. Facts and Procedural History          ¶5 While driving northbound on South Tejon Street in Colorado Springs, Sandoval encountered an inoperative traffic signal at the intersection with East 5 Costilla Street. The inoperative light was unilluminated, and there was no other signal to direct his course of action. Sandoval stopped at the intersection. Unaware that the eastbound light on Costilla Street was still operating and properly cycling, Sandoval treated the intersection as a four-way stop and proceeded when he thought it was clear for his turn. Kinzy, driving eastbound on Costilla Street with a green light at the intersection, then struc