Wagner v. Planned Parenthood: Colorado Premises Liability Case

On November 27, 2015, Robert Dear carried out an armed attack at the Colorado Springs clinic of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc. (PPRM). He arrived with multiple firearms and explosive devices, shot several people in the parking lot, entered the building by firing through a glass door, and continued shooting inside. His actions resulted in multiple deaths and injuries, including harm to police officers who responded to the scene.

The victims and their families, including Samantha Wagner, Ashley Stewart on behalf of her minor child, Mandy Davis, and Ammar Laskarwala, filed suit against Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA) and PPRM. They asserted that PPRM was liable under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (CPLA), section 13-21-115, as a landowner responsible for protecting invitees from foreseeable dangers. They also brought a negligence claim against PPFA, alleging that it exercised control over PPRM.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both PPFA and PPRM. It concluded that PPFA had no duty to plaintiffs because it was not a landowner under the CPLA and did not control the PPRM facility. As for PPRM, the trial court ruled that Dear’s actions were the predominant cause of the injuries and deaths, and that PPRM could not reasonably have foreseen or prevented such a mass shooting.

Appellate Court Review

The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision. Regarding PPFA, the appellate court affirmed the ruling, holding that PPFA had not been shown to be a landowner or to exercise control over PPRM’s property. Therefore, it owed no duty under the CPLA.

On the claims against PPRM, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment. It reasoned that plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to create factual disputes over whether PPRM knew or should have known of the risks of criminal violence and whether reasonable security measures could have mitigated the harm. Evidence included prior threats against abortion providers, internal security warnings, active shooter training, staff concerns about safety, and an FBI report warning of potential attacks. Plaintiffs also presented an expert opinion suggesting that additional measures, such as full-time security guards, perimeter fencing, reinforced doors, and electronic lockdown systems, could have reduced the scale of the attack.

The appellate court emphasized that under the CPLA, invitees may recover if harmed by a landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care against dangers of which the landowner knew or should have known. It determined that whether PPRM acted reasonably in addressing the risks was a factual question for a jury, not a matter to be resolved on summary judgment.

Court’s Ruling

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of PPFA but reversed the judgment in favor of PPRM. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine PPRM’s potential liability under the Colorado Premises Liability Act.

Assistance with Premises Liability Matters

If you have been injured due to unsafe property conditions or inadequate security, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with premises liability cases. Contact us to learn how our team can help with your claim.Wagner v. Planned Parenthood: Colorado Premises Liability Case