The Colorado Supreme Court decided last month that Colorado Springs can be sued over a collision that occurred as a result of traffic lights that were functioning normally in one direction, but were inoperative in the perpendicular direction.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether the traffic arrangement provided “conflicting” signals to plaintiff Bernard E. Sandoval and the driver he collided with. Although the Court of Appeals believed there was no conflict, the justices disagreed.

“Realistically, no municipality would design an intersection with a traffic light only operating one way while the cross traffic adhered to a stop sign because of the practical ramifications. This would create confusion for drivers,” wrote Justice Brian D. Boatright in the May 26 opinion.

Construction was occurring at the intersection of South Tejon Street and East Costilla Street in August 2019 when Sandoval drove up to the intersection and faced an unilluminated light. Treating the intersection as a four-way stop, he proceeded and was hit by a driver traveling in the perpendicular direction whose light was green. He then sued.

The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act generally shields public entities from lawsuits over injuries they cause. There is an exception, however, if the government fails to address “a traffic control signal on which conflicting directions are displayed.”

District Court Judge Amanda Philipps declined to dismiss the lawsuit, finding the conflicting-directions exception applied. But on appeal, the city maintained the signals did not conflict because it was possible for Sandoval to treat his light as a stop sign and for the other driver to proceed on green without inevitably colliding.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed. Under Colorado’s traffic laws, explained Judge Ted C. Tow III, the driver with a green light should proceed normally and the driver facing an inoperative light has the obligation to proceed only when the intersection is clear.

Because the drivers who collided “could have followed these directions simultaneously without issue, the signals were not incompatible,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court, however, was concerned about the panel’s focus on the driver and not the light.

“We have to ask ourselves, what does that dark, unilluminated signal mean?” said W. Erik Lamphere of the City Attorney’s Office during oral arguments. “And it doesn’t mean to proceed through that intersection without regard.”

“I have trouble seeing why an objectively reasonable person would not have treated that as a four-way stop when you’re there in the moment,” countered Justice Richard L. Gabriel.

Boatright asked Lamphere whether it constituted a dangerous condition for one set of lights to be dark while the perpendicular lights were operational. No, not inherently, said Lamphere.

“Do you think if that was the light situation, the city would be like, ‘We’ll get to that in a couple days, it’s no big deal?’” Boatright asked. “Or would they be like, ‘We need to get out there because that’s a dangerous situation’?”

“It is an unusual situation,” said Lamphere.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reinstated Sandoval’s lawsuit.

“Each day, motorists depend on predictability to remain safe on the road. For example, we expect that other cars will stop at red lights. And we plan accordingly. Predicting the actions of other drivers stems from our social contract that we all subscribe to on the road to keep ourselves and others safe,” wrote Boatright. “However, the scenario presented here removed predictability at the intersection. With the light malfunctioning in one direction, it must have become very difficult for drivers, like Sandoval, to predict the conduct of other drivers in the cross-traffic.”

He added that, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ view, Sandoval could not have complied with traffic laws “because no such law envisions this vexing situation.”

Therefore, the signals were inherently conflicting and the city was not entitled to immunity.

The case is Sandoval v. City of Colorado Springs.