EXPOSING

I guess they didn’t like losing to a blue collar peon like me, and so they appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in Denver. The oral arguments took place in August 2006 and the appealed ruling was announced in September 2006. It was affirmed in part, reversed in part and sent back to district court with directions. What the court of appeals reversed was a small amount of damages for loss of rental value of my property, because I didn’t have concrete evidence to back it up. The appeals court also reversed the prejudgment interest awarded by district court, because my attorney didn’t stipulate it on the initial complaint and jury demand. The court of appeals affirmed and agreed with everything else. On page 2 of the permanent injunction that was issued, it states that the court concluded that the plaintiff (the blue collar peon, me) proved that the lights were an actionable nuisance. The jury also found that the defendants (the car dealerships) were creating, maintaining and/or allowing a nuisance to exist. The last paragraph on page 3 says (paraphrasing) the laws are sensitive to property owners rights to use and enjoy their private property, without having to close blinds or curtains on their windows to accommodate a business interest (the bright lights).

My lawsuit for nuisance of light was called a case of first impression by the defense attorney, meaning noone in Colorado had ever sued for that type of nuisance before and won. My lawsuit has now set a new precedent for a nuisance of light that can be used for the entire State of Colorado. It can help other residential citizens (should they/you choose) to get relief of bright light that is interfering with the use and enjoyment of their/your private property.

The type of precedent that my lawsuit set is called persuasive, as opposed to a binding precedent. Attorneys can find it using Westlaw Legal research at: 2006 WL2567678. A regular citizen can contact the Colorado Courts website at:www.courts.state.co.us, then click on the "Court of Appeals" icon to access their homepage. Go to the Case Announcement Archives, Announcements for 2006. The case is dated September 7, 2006. Follow the instructions to request a copy of the final decision by the Court of Appeals. The case number "04CA2444" may be required, and the case is listed as Cash vs. Emich d.b.a. Elway Chrysler Jeep West & Elway Subaru West.

5. Why

All of this happened, in my opinion, because city government and salaried officials would not force the John Elway Subaru West dealership to fix/shield their lights correctly, to stop the direct light according to the city’s own ordinance, in 2002. And, in my opinion, this happened because of the arrogance of a $20 billion-dollar-a-year corporation (AutoNation, Inc.) that didn’t tell their architect to design a lighting system compatible with close residential neighbors. The representative from AutoNation was at the planning commission meetings and heard of the concerns about bright light from the people who would be affected by it. Then, when the lights were turned on in March of 2002 and we complained, and the executives at AutoNation headquarters were notified about the problem, they could have told their general manager just to fix them all correctly, as soon as