Nesjan v. J & A Distributing, Inc.
2025 COA 81. No. 24CA1639. Limitation of Actions—General Two-Year Limitation—Three-Year Limitation for Tort Actions for Bodily Injury or Property Damage Arising Out of the Use or Operation of a Motor Vehicle.
October 2, 2025
Nesjan, who is a mechanic, agreed to inspect a box truck owned by J & A Distributing, Inc. for a suspected driveshaft problem. According to Nesjan, before the inspection, he put the truck’s gearshift in park, engaged the emergency brake, and placed wheel chocks under the tires. Then, when he went underneath the truck to inspect the driveshaft, the driveshaft came loose, causing the truck to roll backward and over him. Nesjan sustained serious bodily injuries, including fractured ribs, a broken neck, a broken back, and a broken right leg. Three years later, Nesjan asserted claims against J & A Distributing and its owners Tony and Judith Vasquez (collectively, J & A Distributing) for negligence and negligence per se based on their alleged failure to maintain the box truck in good mechanical condition. J & A Distributing moved to dismiss under CRCP 12(b)(5), arguing that Nesjan’s claims were barred because he brought them outside the two-year statute of limitations in CRS § 13-80-102(1)(a) for most tort actions. The district court applied that statute of limitations, which addresses negligence actions generally, and dismissed the negligence action as untimely.
On appeal, Nesjan argued that the district court erred by concluding that his claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations. He maintained that he was injured in an accident “involving the use and/or operation” of the truck within the meaning of § 13-80-101(1)(n)(I), so the three-year statute of limitations in that statute applies. Under § 13-80-101(1)(n)(I), all tort claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle must be brought within three years after the claim accrues. The court of appeals analyzed the meaning of “use . . . of a motor vehicle” and held that this phrase includes a person hired to inspect and repair a motor vehicle who sustained bodily injuries while performing those maintenance-related activities. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations applies to Nesjan’s negligence claims, and the court erred by dismissing his complaint as untimely.
The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to reinstate Nesjan’s complaint.