|
<br />24-10-106
<br />
<br />Government - State
<br />
<br />135
<br />
<br />134
<br />
<br />a public water facility 0' public sanitation facility. No liability shall be
<br />impos~d in any such action unless negligence is p,oven.
<br />
<br />Source: l. 71. p. 1206. ~ I: eR.S. 1963. ~ 130-11-6; l. 79. p. 702. ~ 76;
<br />l. 86. p. 875. ~5: l. 87. p. 931. ~ I.
<br />
<br />Am. Jur.2d. See 57 Am. Jur.ld. Municipal.
<br />School. and State Ton liability. ~ ~ 14~26.
<br />69.71.
<br />C.J.s. Sce KIA C'.J,S.. Slalc'.ll 196-202.
<br />298-307,
<br />Law re\-iew!ii. For nOle. "Prisoners' Rights:
<br />Personal Securitv", see .n u. Colo. L. Rev.
<br />30511970), .
<br />Immunitl' to be stricth: construed. The Colo-
<br />r3do governmental immunity act is in deroga-
<br />tion of the common law. and the legislative
<br />grants ofimmunllY must be strictly construed.
<br />Slcp~~n '0, City & County ofDC'",;er. 659 P.ld
<br />6661Colo.19831,
<br />:"110 "'ah'cr of eleyenth amendment immll/lilv.
<br />A Slate's wai',er of its immunity against Sll;\ i"n
<br />Its own couns doC's not constitute a waiver of
<br />Its eleventh amendment immunllY against SUit
<br />in federal coun. Verner v. Colorad<" 533 F.
<br />Supp, 110910, Cola, 19821, .ffd, 716 F,1d
<br />1351 (10th ("ir, 1983). cen. denied. ~66 U,S.
<br />"60. 104 S, Cl. 117;, 80 L. Ed,1d ;;811984):
<br />Griess v. Colorado. 6~4 F. Supp. 450(0. Colo.
<br />198;',
<br />Cit)o. ordinance requirement ror assertion of
<br />claims hdd mid. -\ cit\" Qrdinance whIch
<br />requires InstallatIon ofbackwatt:r check \ alves
<br />!'or thl: assenion of claIms for damages result-
<br />Ing from the operation and maintenance of
<br />sewage lines and lacllilies imposes a require-
<br />ment which is more onerous than that
<br />imposed by subsection (I )(f) and is therefore
<br />void. Flcckman v. City of Greelev. 673 P.~d
<br />376ICo1o..~pp,1983),' ,
<br />County is a "public entity" enlHled to soyer.
<br />eiR:R immunity. .-\merican Employers Ins. Co.
<br />.... Board of Counl\' Camm'rs. 5.n F.1d 5 II
<br />C10thCir, 19761, .
<br />If subsection II )(d) is struc~ eountv remains
<br />immune. If paragraph (dl of subsection III IS
<br />struck from thiS section. a county remains
<br />Immune .JS to an J.CCldcnl llccurring on a
<br />county road. because the dfect of striking
<br />paragraph ldl would be nOI 10 e."end Ihe
<br />waiver of lmmunll'" to countv roads but
<br />ralher. to reSCind the waiver as'lo the road~
<br />described in paragraph (d). .-\mcncan Employ.
<br />\:r5 Ins. Co. v. Board orCoumy lamm'rs, ;47
<br />F.2d ; III J Oth Cir. 1976).
<br />Conduct ",rondul under ~ 1983 cannot be
<br />immunized. Conduct by persons acting under
<br />~.olor of slolle law which IS wrongful under-l1
<br />U.s.e. ~ 1983 cannol be Immunized bv state
<br />law. :V1ucci .... Falcon School Disl. No. .i9. 655
<br />P ~d -I~~ lC,lo. -\pp. 1 Q8~1.
<br />
<br />Amounts contracted to be paid are not
<br />"claims" within the meanin~ of this section.
<br />Ace Flying Serv.. Inc. v. Colorado Dep't of
<br />-\griculture. 136 Cola, 19. 31~ P.~d ~78
<br />(1957) (decided under former CRS 53,
<br />1130-2,1),
<br />Operation of a motor vehicle. For a pu~lic
<br />entity to be immune from a claim arising from
<br />the operation of an ~mergency vehicle. both
<br />the vehicle's lights and siren must ha...e been in
<br />operation. and any violation of a tratlic regu-
<br />lation which gave rise to the claim must have
<br />been one of those specified in ~ 41.~-I06 (2)(a)
<br />through (d). Sierr:a v: City and County of Den-
<br />ve,. 730 P,1d 902 IColo. ,~pp, 1986),
<br />Reason immunity not extended to be danger-
<br />ous conditions of roads or slr~ets. The apparent
<br />purpose of the general assembly in not extend-
<br />ing sovereign Immunity to actions for injuries
<br />resulting from dangerous conditions of roads
<br />or streets was to make governments liable for
<br />failure- to maintain those facilities in a condi-
<br />tion safe for public USe. Stephen v, City &
<br />CounlyofDenver. 659 P.~d 666 (Colo. 1983).
<br />Improper placement or ..top 'jign is "dan2er-
<br />ous condition", lmpropcr placement of a stop
<br />sign is WIthin the stalulOr) d~tinlllon of a
<br />"dangerous cORdillon" for which a CIty may
<br />be held liable, Slephen \'. City & CounlY of
<br />Denver, 659 P,2d 666 IColo, 1983),
<br />Failure 10 modify or improve traffic signals.
<br />While negligence of public entity in designing
<br />or constructing ponions of street or highway
<br />s~'slem or in maintainlRg them free of defects
<br />or obstructions is actionable under Govern-
<br />menial lmmunit\' Act: failure to modify or
<br />improve them to' make them safer in light of
<br />Changing use IS not. Karr v. City & County of
<br />Den,,'er, 677 P.2d 138~ lColo. .-\pp. 198~).
<br />Dan~erous condition not found. Sierra v.
<br />Citv and (aunt... of Denver. -:"30 P.~d 901
<br />IC.;lo..~pp, 1986'"
<br />Public duty rule cannot be used (0 avoid
<br />liability ",'here special relalionship e:,;ists
<br />between public entity and plalRtllT. Leake v.
<br />Cain. 720 P.~d I 51ICo10. 1986).
<br />Special relationship rule applies when a
<br />person should reasonably foresee thoU hiS act.
<br />or failure to act. .....111 in,,'oh'e unre:Jsonable rISk
<br />of harm to another: then there IS a dutv to
<br />avoid that harm. However, there IS no duiy to
<br />prevent 3 third person from harming another
<br />ab~nt a special relatIon between the actor and
<br />the wrongdoer or bet,l,'een iiu: :!ctor .:1nd t:.('
<br />
<br />victim. It
<br />1986t. Wb
<br />.....73IP.
<br />For put):
<br />, police om
<br />"" \boy aCliIl
<br />~. Cl1l . PRim
<br />w1lJ 1SSisr,
<br />CiIY_'
<br />(Colo. App
<br />Police ,0
<br />ID 'd t.
<br />
|