FLOOD03849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts of officers, agents, or employees that are governmental in nature, but is liable for negligent acts of its agents in the performance .~f duties relating to proprietary or private corporate purposes ~f the city. Denver v. Madison, 142 Colo. 1, 351 P.2d 826 (1960). The construction, maintenance and repair of drainage improvements have been regarded as proprietary or corporate functions. Denver v. Maurer, 47 Colo. 209, 106 P. 875 (1910). Although the govern- mental-proprietary distinction has been abolished by statute in Colorado, the disti~ction apparently still obtains whenever "the injury arises from the act, or failure to act, of a public employee would be or heretofore has been personally immune from liability." C.R.S. ~24-10-106. Thus, a municipality may be held liable for the acts of its officers, agents or employees for injuries res~ltinh from negligent construction, maintenance, or dangerous conditions of a public facility. C.R.S. ~24-10-106 (l)(e), (l)(f). However, it is not clear whether, in Colorado, liability attaches or, con- versely, whether the defense of governmental immunity applies to the adoption, selection, or approval of a defective plan or design. The governmental immunity statute provides for a waiver of governmental immunity when Lljuries result from the operation and maintenance or dangerous conditio" of a public facility. C.R.S. 924-10-106 (l)(e), (l)(f). The statute also states that "a dangerous condition shall not exist solely because the design of any facility...is inadequate in relation to its present use.". C.R.S. ~24-l0-l03 (1). Since the distinction between construction anrl design is often vague, it is tltifficult to predict how the Colorado courts will approach municipal liability for injuries resulting from adoption, selection, or approval of a defective plan or design by municipal officers, agents, or employees. " , Before an individual cap recover from a public entity for injuries caused by the public entity or one of its employees, Colorado's governmental immunity statute requires written notice within ninety days after the date of discovery of the injury to the public entity involved. Otherwise, failure to notify is a complete defense to a personal injury action against a municipality. C.R.S. ~24-l0-l09. Kristensen v. Jones, 575 P.2d 854 (1978). 2. Municipal Liability for Acts of Developers. Unless an ordinance or statute imposes a duty on a municipality to prevent or protect land from surface water drainage, a municipality will not incur liability for wrongfully issuing building permits, failing to enforce an ordinance, or approvin~ defective subdivision plans. Breiner v. C & P Homebuilder's, Inc., 536 F.2d 27 (3rd Cir. 1976), reversing the District Court. (In suit by landowners in adjacent township against borough, its engineers, and subdivision developer for damages caused by increased flow of ~rface water from development where borough approved subdivision \ (6)