|
<br />.-\5 t,l the suffIciency of the evidence
<br />sllpp(lf~ing t!t~ trial comt's finding of fore-
<br />sl'eC\1Iil~ty. plai:ltiff::;' experts, Ur, Clark
<br />anel :\lr. \\'hec:1cr, in their t~::.timollY rt:-
<br />yiewcG the dn'elopmcnt of the scienc(" of
<br />pfedicting floods, They showed tru_~ for
<br />appf0x:n:attly thirty years preceditlg tht
<br />cOl:5~n;ctiGl\ of this dam the teclwiriue of
<br />Go:tt: nn;n ing- maximum flood by the "prob-
<br />able maximum p:-(;(ipita~ion" method, based
<br />on stonn transpo~itio::, -was genually
<br />kno\\ nand u5cd in the d,o;,ign of dam:'.
<br />hy er,gincl.:rs .\nd hydro!ogish. Dr. Clark
<br />tc,tifll..d in detail as to the p,occ..;s by
<br />whidl a dtteflllin2.tior: is arrj~'cd at in Oi-
<br />d.;'r to dettrn~ine the m,\Ximlili~ p!""uhabll;
<br />iln,),-!. Tht tt<;tirr'cO;')" of Dr. Cl::o.rk and
<br />;.Ir. \\"fl('(.'kr was to the effect tllat the
<br />pro..:e;::-, of dc.ttilnintog th;;: maximum prob-
<br />2.1;1t' ilorK! is a gc;~era1:y kK.I". n and wide-
<br />ly U~t,t ti.'d,r;iq~le, ft~<<,:1;]y aya;h:Jle to any
<br />u;.<..;:-,t<:1 planning the cOLs[ructic'l~ of a
<br />d3~YL The defeT,dant admittul thdt tl,e
<br />ITi2<rnur:: probable ilor!d 011 Cl;:ty Cred., is
<br />2'j').'{\(: d:,. In \';~W vi th~~ t~:;t;.I~l{j:'.y an..1
<br />til ~ adr:\::,sior., it canrlOt be a::':';(1 ted th;\t
<br />~ th'~ fl",)-\ ot 1.:::';'-\,ODU cf:. \\<t" not fO;-bl;e~
<br />;:d.:c to) rcasolu1de ntlnL~'l lntelltgf'l1ce
<br />This Co(,d wa" not of the m::1.;;nitl1dc of
<br />t;le <<.dn:itLcd n1<lxin:l'm pr;)L~~)~e fl(J,.)(l fr-,r
<br />th;" (~';'::-'Ctg"c l1<tc,in tJllt anI) 70j~ of that
<br />i;,f.;_:rl;. D,. Clotrk\ L~I!rc of 21_-ii,f)(:n cf~
<br />f,-,r ~).." l~,;;xi'T,um pj"u1,;~lJ1L' ~h~rrn fo~. dl('
<br />C l;tY (n:(-K L'l~i;l \\ ;,0;, \;;t'lcd C):-, t}le ;1,
<br />
<br />;~
<br />..., rrf'
<br />J.>>"t", "if"';'"
<br />,\ti.JY-'
<br />. .>>r)(
<br />evl' ij
<br />
<br />sumeJ transpositior, of a storm which had
<br />actually occurred in 1935 at a place ap-
<br />proxirn<<tely eighty miles due north of tht:
<br />site of this flood,
<br />
<br />The maximum pro'Lah!e storm, by def-
<br />inition, is both maximum and probable.
<br />It can and may occur. Dr. Clark further
<br />testified that in his opinion a rea~onabli'
<br />cornfl~tent meteorologist or hydromctcorol-
<br />ogist should h<we anticipated a flood of
<br />the magnitude of the June 1965 flood ill
<br />Clay Creek Basin.
<br />
<br />On this e',idcnce, t}le conrt found that
<br />with mockrn meteorological te.chniqucs, a
<br />ITl<<x!mum probal,k storm is prc(1;ctahlc
<br />a.:d a maximlllll prob8.h!e flood is foresee-
<br />?,'b1-.:::. Thus being IJoth pf{:dictallk and
<br />flJfl.>eeahle to the defeochnt in tht: design
<br />anJ c(,'l5:tructior, of the dam, the defense
<br />of act of God is not ava'!1able to tncm.
<br />In si;ort. the nood which occurred in June
<br />of 1%~ could not be classifitd as an act
<br />of God.
<br />
<br />.' The engineers who testified for
<br />plaintiffs were admittedly exputs in their
<br />field and the credibility and weight to IJC
<br />given to their testimony wer~ p<,ctlliarly
<br />within tht:' province of the trial court. The
<br />trial court found that hy modern mcteorO.
<br />logical techniques defendant could have
<br />forescen this storm. \Vhether or not the
<br />storm was foresccaLle is a question of fact
<br />entirely within the province of the trt<.tl
<br />COllrt who was the finder of fact in this
<br />case, and its finding on this issue will not
<br />be. d;slurbed Oll review unless clearly a-
<br />rone-ou:>. Broncucia v. 1.IcGec. Colo" 475
<br />P.2d 336.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Ill.
<br />
<br />Defendant Illdintains tllat in ally
<br />e\'ent costs are not payable because the
<br />paym':::-It of costs was nnt authorized by
<br />the legisl<>.ture in its bill gri~nting the rig'ht
<br />to, illit;a~e action ag;tinst th.. state, The
<br />rih'ht granted to initiate the attie,n against
<br />the st?~e prO\.idt;"; that tne right i~ granted
<br />"f()f tne purpose of determining the liil.-
<br />bility for a!ly injury or loss alleged to
<br />h2,'..e Dce:l suffereJ. and to recovcr dam-
<br />
<br />ages therefor." Se.::tion 2 of Cola St.
<br />. ,.
<br />La\\s 1967, Ch. 1-19, p. 189, provide;:
<br />"In any such action, the state, its d..,
<br />pJ.rtmcnt:;, commissions, of fieers, Or Oth.
<br />er employees sh;:tll have all the rigf.t~
<br />to which an ordinary defendant wou;:~
<br />be entitlerl in a sim'ilar action. Hearin;
<br />shall be conducted according to the Cvl.
<br />orado rules of civil procedure, and tt...
<br />la'w\.s of this state, and -liability. if a!:;:
<br />and damages, if auy, shall be detcrmi:l~,f
<br />and assessed in accordance with the sa~c
<br />standards and rules of lav,.' applical,!;: i~
<br />similar actions. between private partic:;.,.
<br />\Ve agree with the text in AnnaL, 72 :\.
<br />L.R.2d J379, at 139.1, wherein it if; sta1t:"!;
<br />"\Vherc a state \'olulltitrily Lecomf:~ 1
<br />litig-ant-~either in its 0\\ 11 cOHrb or ir:
<br />the courts of another jurisdiction-tb
<br />result, according to some ca~es, is In:\t
<br />it waives it-. svvucign imPlunity frr~rlj
<br />suit and m,\y be subjcr:tcd to cost... iB
<br />the S<l_rnc manller as a pri v.tte litig,:l.111.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Judgment affirrrteJ.
<br />
<br />E:\OGI and PIFlICE, JJ., conCur.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
|