Colorado Court Reviewed Dismissal of Injury Tied to Oil Spill Crash

Grantland Deines filed a negligence lawsuit against Atlas Energy Services, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Consolidated Divisions, Inc. (CDI), and Mario Fernandez-Tapia. He alleged that their conduct caused a hazardous oil spill on Interstate 76 near Hudson, Colorado, which led to a road closure and ultimately caused the vehicle collision that injured him.

On the night of the incident in December 2017, Fernandez-Tapia drove a truck owned by Atlas or CDI, which spilled approximately 1,000 gallons of oil on the highway. Authorities closed the highway by 6:40 p.m., redirecting traffic through a nearby exit. Fifteen minutes later, Deines was driving on the highway when he noticed emergency lights and began to slow down. As he crested an incline, he encountered stopped vehicles in a traffic jam caused by the detour. While slowing down, his vehicle was struck from behind by another driver, Omar Campa-Borrego.

Deines sued the companies and Fernandez-Tapia, alleging that the oil spill set into motion the chain of events that led to his injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the accident was too temporally and geographically distant from the oil spill and was caused by the negligence of Campa-Borrego, which they said was an unforeseeable intervening cause.

District court granted summary judgment

The trial court concluded that the oil spill was not the proximate cause of Deines’s injuries as a matter of law. It held that Campa-Borrego’s inattentive driving was unforeseeable, extraordinary, and broke the chain of causation. The court relied on the fact that other drivers had managed to stop without incident and found that Deines’s accident occurred nearly a third of a mile and forty minutes after the spill.

Appeals court reversed, found jury should decide foreseeability

The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. It emphasized that foreseeability and proximate cause are typically jury questions unless no reasonable jury could find otherwise. The court explained that Colorado law evaluates proximate cause based on the totality of the circumstances known to the defendant at the time, not in hindsight.

The court rejected the use of any rigid multi-factor test, stating that the appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable person could foresee that an oil spill requiring a highway closure might lead to a subsequent vehicle accident. It cited previous Colorado cases involving delayed and distant injuries where courts allowed juries to decide proximate cause.

The appellate court noted that another accident occurred that night in the same area and that a deputy marshal described the diverted traffic area as very dangerous. It concluded that a jury could reasonably find that the crash was a foreseeable result of the hazardous condition created by the spill.

The court also rejected defendants' arguments that the spill was too far removed in time or location from the accident. It pointed out that prior cases had allowed jury consideration of proximate cause even where more time and distance had passed between the alleged negligent act and the injury.

Final outcome

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a jury must decide whether the oil spill proximately caused Deines’s injuries.

Help with motor vehicle collision injury cases

If you were injured in a crash resulting from road hazards or negligence involving hazardous materials, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles personal injury cases related to highway collisions, commercial vehicle accidents, and third-party liability. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your claim.