Denver Jury Finds Police Officer 90% at Fault for Backing Over CU Basketball Player; $387,000 Judgment Affirmed

In December 2019, Quinessa Caylao-Do, then a basketball player at the University of Colorado, was celebrating her birthday in Denver. She and a friend took an Uber toward another friend's home, but the driver would not finish the ride because Caylao-Do, who had been drinking, was feeling unwell. The two women stepped into an alley to call another car.

While they waited, Denver police officer John Logue turned his patrol car into the alley and struck Caylao-Do from behind, knocking her to the ground. Logue thought he had hit a cardboard box. He reversed to dislodge it and dragged Caylao-Do along the pavement under the car.

Caylao-Do suffered physical and emotional injuries that ended her basketball career. She sued Logue and the City and County of Denver for negligence in Denver District Court. Zachary Elsner of The Wilhite Law Firm tried the case with co-counsel Laura Wolf of Spark Justice Law, against attorneys from the Denver City Attorney's Office.

The case went to a jury in 2022 and the trial lasted four days. The defense was not simple. Caylao-Do had been drinking, and the jury assigned 10% of the fault to her and 90% to the officer. It valued her damages at $579,795.65, which came to $521,816.09 after the 10% reduction.

Because the defendants were a public employee and a city, the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act capped what she could recover for one person's injury in a single occurrence. The parties agreed the maximum was $387,000. The trial court ruled that the cap included costs and prejudgment interest, and it entered judgment for $387,000.

Both sides appealed. The City challenged the trial court's decision to uphold a Batson objection to one of its peremptory jury strikes, argued that Caylao-Do's lawyers had violated an order limiting evidence and argument, and sought a new trial over a juror's alleged anti-police remarks during deliberations. Caylao-Do argued on cross-appeal that costs and interest should fall outside the cap. On May 1, 2025, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected every argument from both sides in a published opinion, 2025 COA 42, and affirmed the judgment. The court held that a juror's alleged anti-police bias in deliberations does not fall within the constitutional exception to the rule barring juror testimony about deliberations. Caylao-Do then asked the Colorado Supreme Court to take the case, and it denied review on September 15, 2025, leaving the $387,000 judgment in place.