|
<br />. .
<br />
<br />9 Colo. 554, 13 P. 729 (1887). In the case of municipalities,
<br />however, the distinction between unlawful collection, diversion,
<br />or concentration of surface waters and lawful improvement is not
<br />always clear particularly as the pace and extent of urbanization
<br />increases. City of Englewood v. Linkenheil, 146 Colo. 493, 362
<br />p.2d 185 (1961); Aicher v. Denver, 10 Colo. App. 413, 52 P. 86
<br />(1897).
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />....-~-""'"--,---',._.~._-~,...'- ,.....
<br />--
<br />
<br />
<br />As a genera , mun~c~palities are under no
<br />legal duty to construct drainage improvements unless public improve-
<br />ments necessitate drainage - as in those situations in which street
<br />grading and paving or construction of schools accelerate or alter
<br />storm runoff. Denver v. Mason, 88 Colo. 294, 295 P. 788 (1931);
<br />Denver v. Capelli, 4 Colo. 25, 34 Am.Rep. 62 (1877); Daniels v. City
<br />of Denver, 2 Colo. 669 (1875). This is because statutory provisions
<br />authorizing municipal drainage improvements and flood control are
<br />generally written in nonmandatory language. Thus, absent mandatory
<br />statutory language imposing a duty on municipalities or judicial
<br />imposition of an implied duty to avoid or abate injuries, munici-
<br />palities are not liable for failing to provide drainage or flood
<br />control. Similarly, it is generally held that municipalities are not
<br />liable for adoption or selection of a defective plan of drainage.
<br />Malvernia v. City of Trinidad, 123 Colo. 394, 229 P.2d 945 (1951);
<br />City and County of Denver v. Mason, 88 Colo. 294, 295 P. 788 (193l~
<br />Aicher v. City of Denver, 10 Colo. App. 413, 52 P. 86 (1897); Denver
<br />v. Capelli, 4 Colo. 25, 34, Am. Rep. 62 (1877). These decisions,
<br />however, were based primarily on governmental immunity which pro-
<br />tected municipalities from liability when exerc~sing governmental
<br />or discretionary powers as opposed to proprietary or ministerial
<br />powers. In Colorado, governmental immunity has been partially
<br />waived and the governmental-proprietary distinction has been
<br />abolished. C.R.S. ~24-l0-l0l. As a result, Colorado municipalities
<br />may be exposed to liability in the future for adoption or s ec
<br />o~ plan or design ~age. ~--_.., R~
<br />
<br />~~ Y~/2. onstr~cti,' Maintena~~~
<br />~ ~ _/ of ",,'"' , ,. .-lk.
<br />
<br />--,.- Municipalities can be held liable for negligen ~
<br />construction of drainage improvements. McCord v. City of Pueblo,
<br />5 Colo. App. 48, 36 P. 1109 (1894); Denver v. Rhodes, 9 Colo. 554,
<br />13 P. 729 (1887); Denver v. Capelli, 4 Colo. 25, 34 Am. Rep. 62
<br />(1877); (as well as for negligent maintenance and repair of drainage
<br />improvements) Malvernia v. City of Trinidad, 123 Colo. 394, 229 P.2d
<br />945 (1951); Denver v. Mason, 88 Colo. 294, 295 P. 788 (1931); Denver
<br />v. Capelli, 4 Colo. 25, 34 Am. Rep. 62 (1877). tIl
<br />
<br />(3)
<br />
<br />1-15-80
<br />
|