Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />, A Study of GIS fo, the Colo,ado Department of Nalural Resources <br /> <br />Octobe, 9, 1992 <br /> <br />The remedies available under the UCC are more extensive than those available through the <br />law of negligence, and disclaimers must include language to exclude the implied warranties <br />of merchantability and fitness for a panicular use which the UCC creates. These <br />disclaimers are required to be conspicuous and mention the tenn "merchantability". <br /> <br />IMPACT OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ON POTENTIAL LIABILITY <br /> <br />,... <br />... <br />~ <br />... <br /> <br />In spite of the general potential liability mentioned above, the Colorado Governmental <br />Immunity Act (CRS 24-10-101 et seq), will determine whether or not an agency of the state <br />may be sued. This act refers back to the concept of sovereign immunity, wherein the state <br />and its subdivisions' were often immune from suit for injuries suffered by private persons. <br />In many states this doctrine has been found to be inequitable, and Colorado is no exception <br />to this rule. Colorado's Supreme Court abrogated the entire doctrine with regard to the <br />state and all of its political subdivisions in a set of three decisions handed down in 1971. <br />Proffitt v. State. 482 P. 2d 965 (Colo. 1971), is the specific case of the three which <br />abrogated sovereign immunity for the state. The Court, in these three decisions, stated that <br />the legislature had full authority to reinstate the doctrine, in full or in part, which is what the <br />General Assembly did with the passage of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. <br /> <br />The declaration of policy for this act, found in CRS 24-10-102, stated that the General <br />Assembly recognized that the doctrine was, in some instances, inequitable. However, the <br />General Assembly also' recognized that the state and its politiciU subdivisions provide <br />essential public services and' functions and that unlimited liability could disrupt or make <br />prohibitively expensive the provision of such eSsential public services ana functions. <br />Further, the General Assembly recognized that the taxpayers would ultimately bear the <br />costs of such unlimited liability and that the taxpayers should be protected from excessive <br />fiscal burdens. At the same time, public employees should be provided with some degree <br />of protection so that they are not chilled from providing public services by the threat of <br />liability. <br /> <br />Therefore, the General Assembly enacted this article, CRS 24-10, establishing <br />"govenunental immunity," which provides an appropriate balance between allowing private <br />persons to pursue legal actions against the state for injuries caused by actions of the state, <br />its subdivisions, or their employees; and providing governmental immunity, so as to allow <br />the efficient operation of government. In this anicle are described all of the circumstances <br />under which the state, its subdivisions, or employees may be held,liable. A key element of <br />this article is the express provision that the distinction between governmental and <br />proprietary functions should be abolished for the purposes of determining liability (CRS <br />24-10-102). <br /> <br />It should be noted that this anicle only provides immunity for actions that may be brought <br />against these panies under tort law. While this is a strong statement of immunity, a brief <br />survey of what is not covered will provide a better understanding of the protection <br />provided. Tort law is a common law concept that applies to civil wrongs, sq~h as <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG'aphics, Inc. <br /> <br />14 <br />