|
<br />24-10-105
<br />
<br />Goye,nment- State
<br />
<br />132
<br />
<br />its dc\"C'nth amendment immunity against suit
<br />In federal court. Verner \', Colorildo. 533 F.
<br />Supp, 110910. Cola, 19821. 3.Td. 716 F,2d
<br />1351110Ih Cir. 1983), cen. denied. -166 U.S.
<br />960, 104 S, CI. 2175. 80 L. Ed,:d 558(1984):
<br />Griess v. Colorado. 61-1 F. Supp. -I50fo. Colo.
<br />1985), '
<br />QuasHudlcial immunity nol wai\'H. Quasi.
<br />judicial immunity of parole board and state
<br />were not waived b~' 51311:'5 purchase of insur.
<br />ilnce under statute concerning wai\"er or
<br />nonw3iq~'r of so....creign immunity. St31~ v.
<br />\13500. 71.a P.:d 1189 IColo. 19861 (decided
<br />under law in effect prior to 1986 repeal and
<br />reenactment).
<br />Public enfil~' is 10 be treated like a pri'V3lc
<br />enlin' and m:l\' nol ..ssert the "honest and
<br />reasonable mis'lake" defense in :a neKlilltence
<br />action since the board had obtained insurance
<br />10 cover iu liabilil'" and therefore had waived
<br />the defense of so,,'ereign immunity. Moreland
<br />v. Board of County Comm'rs, 7~S P.2d I
<br />
<br />(Colo. App, 1985) (decided under law in effect
<br />prior to 1986 repeal and reenactment).
<br />State held ro havt' waived sovert'ign immunity
<br />by ha"inlil jnuranct' plJlic)' while Denver
<br />Dcpartment of Social St"ices held not to h.,'c
<br />,,'aivtd sovereign immunity throulb sclf.insur.
<br />an<<. Corbin by Corbin v, City and County of
<br />Denver, 735 P.2d ! 14 (Cola, ,...pp, 1987)
<br />(decided prior to 1986 repeal and reenact-
<br />ment).
<br />Wah'u of sovcreign immunit)" by virtue o(
<br />Iiabilitv insurance C'QveraRe dOC's not extend to
<br />require'ment of notice. under ~ 2~-10.U)9. The
<br />notice provision is a condition precedent to
<br />the commencement of a negligence action
<br />against the city. and no provision in the go...-
<br />~rnmcntal immunity aCI alters the require-
<br />ment of notice where the ~nlil'" carries liabllitv
<br />insurance. \-Iorrison v. City"of .~urora, 745
<br />P.~d 1042 (Colo. .~pp, 1987) (decided under
<br />law in elTeet prior to 1986 r~p~al and reenact-
<br />ment),
<br />
<br />24-10-105. P,io, waive, of immunity - effect. It is the intent of this article
<br />to cove, all actions which lie in ton 0' could lie in ton ,ega,dless of whethe,
<br />that may be the iype of action or the for-m of ,elief chosen by the claimanr.
<br />:-.10 public entity snail be liable fo, such actions e;t(cept as p,oyided in this
<br />article. and no public employee shall be liable fo, injuries arising Out of an.,
<br />act 0' omission occu,ring du,ing the perfo,mance of his duties and within
<br />the scope of his employment. unless such act 0' omission was willful and
<br />wanlOn. except as p,ovided in this a'ticle. :-.lathing in Ihis section shall be
<br />construed to allow any action which lies in Ion 0' could lie in Ion regardless
<br />of whet he' that may be the type of action 0' the form of ,elief chosen by
<br />a claimant to be b,ought against a public employee except in compliance
<br />with the ,equi,ements of this anicle.
<br />
<br />Sou,ce: L. 71. p. 1206. ~ I: CR.S. 1963. ~ 130-11-5: L. 85. 1st h. Sess..
<br />p. 9. ~ 4: L. 86. p. 875. ~ 4.
<br />
<br />.\rtiele is intended 10 define Ihe bounds of
<br />public tntit,. liabilit,.. Forrest \'. County
<br />Comm"r\. 629 P.2d 1105 (Colo. .~pp. 1981).
<br />Plainlifr.. claim could lie in lorl. Cit,,'s act of
<br />prOVIding 'ipt:cilic3tlons and tJc:slgn" for Ihe
<br />pIp!.' to be used gave fiSC' to a common lZ\w tort
<br />dUlY to deSign the pipe wltn reasonable care
<br />Jnd skill. -\ceordingly. plalRtltls claim could
<br />\oURd In lon, and Its nature was not chJngcd
<br />b~ the- C:'lstcnCC oflhC' cOnlrJctual rel.woRship
<br />hctwl'cn the partlC'S. .\tornson \'. (it... of
<br />\urora. :- -lS P.2d If}.e IColo. .~pp. 1987),'
<br />.\rtidt' not applicable 10 ('nntratlual ~lalutoM'
<br />hr~acht~. This article: 15 not mCJnlla apply 10
<br />
<br />2~-10-106.
<br />immune from
<br />
<br />sitU.llioRs where the action concerns the
<br />breach of a contractual s:atutory duty.
<br />Julesburg School Dist. No. RE.t .... Ebkc. 193
<br />Cola, 40. 561 P,:d41911917l,
<br />Claims ""skinR (or orders {or ""ater ..ervices
<br />taRnot lie in lort. They conslltute, In effect. a
<br />mandamus action. Jones \'. .\Jorlh~ast
<br />Durilngo Water Oisl.. 622 P.2d 92 (Colo. .-\pp.
<br />19801.
<br />.\pplied in Gray \". City of ~1anllou Springs.
<br />.aJ Colo. _~pp, 60. 598 P.2d Si7 (1979): Slate
<br />Comp, Ins, Fund \". Cit~ of Colorado Springs,
<br />43 Colo, -\pp. [ I~, 60~ P.~d SSI j 1979).
<br />
<br />Immunity and partial waiver. (I) .... public entity shall be
<br />liability in all claims fo, injury which lie in ton or could lie
<br />
|