Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A Study of GIS fo, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />OcIobe, 9. 1992 <br /> <br />negligence, as opposed to criminal wrongs. The laws of contract, UCC and products <br />liability, copyright and other intellectual propeny, quasi-contract and others are not within <br />the purview of ton law. So, the world of liability that is avoided by the governmental <br />immunity law is not as large as it appears on first glance. However, the saving grace on <br />the immunity statute is that it covers choice of law situations. Any decent attorney, when <br />faced with a statute granting immunity from ton actions, is going to find another law on <br />which to base the case. The General Assembly closed that loophole by providing that any <br />case against those being granted immunity that might have been brought under Ton law, <br />regardless of the theory actually used by the plaintiff, will be precluded by the <br />governmental immunity. <br /> <br />In very general tenns, the immunity granted under this article is applicable to all <br />government functions which do not create any "dangerous conditions," this tenn being <br />defined in the article (CRS 24-10-103(1)), and the subject of much litigation. Also <br />exempted from the immunity umbrella, are actions arising out of the operation of a motor <br />vehicle by a public employee, except for certain emergency vehicles, and the operation of <br />various specified public facilities by public entities (CRS 24-10-106). For these actions of <br />the state, its subdivisions, and employees, the doctrine of governmental immunity is <br />statutorily waived. <br /> <br />It is entirely possible that a division of the state may waive its governmental immunity, <br />above and beyond that which is statutorily waived, even when it does not realize it has <br />done so ap.d does not intend.to do so. The re;1Son for this is that the Colorado Supreme <br />Coun has deemed the governmental immunity act to be in derogation of the cominon law' <br />and thus the grants of immunity under this act are ~o be strictly construed. Steohen v. City <br />, - <br />& County of Denver, 659 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1983). As an example of the strictness 6fthe <br />scrutiny applied, in two cases predating the repeal and reenactment of these law in 1986, <br />the court found that the mere fact that a public entity had taken out an insurance policy to be <br />evidence that they had waived their limited governmental immunity. The coun's reasoning <br />was that if the public entity felt there was something to insure against, that was enough to <br />justify a finding that had waived its immunity with respect to the activities insured. <br />Moreland v. Board of Countv Commissioners, 725 P.2d I (Colo. App. 1985); Corbin by <br />Corbin v City & County of Denver, 735 P.2d 214 (Colo. App. 1987). <br /> <br />What does all this mean with regard to GIS? First of all, obviously, the Department of <br />Natural Resources is a division of the state, and is thereby included in the limited grant of <br />immunity for governmental actions under CRS 24-10-101 et seq. Secondly, it is unlikely, <br />without some new twist in ton law that is as yet unforeseen by any sources available, that it <br />can be said that a GIS can create some dangerous condition, such that the statutory waiver <br />of immunity should apply. So. the only way that DNR. or the state or its other <br />subdivisions, could be held liable for any injuries caused by the creation and maintenance <br />of, or distribution of the information contained in, a GIS is if any of them are found to have <br />voluntarily waived their right to governmental immunity. If any of these panies wishes to <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG'aphics, Inc. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />,.. <br /> <br />;..' <br /> <br />15 <br />