|
<br />'.
<br />
<br />q
<br />
<br />135
<br />
<br />Governmental Immunity
<br />
<br />24-10-106,5
<br />
<br />24-10-106.5. Duty of ca'e. (I) In o,de, to encou,age the p,ovision of
<br />services to p,otect the public health and safety and to allow public entities
<br />to allocate thei, limited fiscal ,esourcesc a public entity 0' public employee
<br />shall not be deemed to have assumed a duty of ca,e whe,e none otherWise
<br />existed by the perfo,mance of a service 0' an act oJ assistance fo, the benefit
<br />of any person, The adoption ofa policy 0' a ,egulatio,n to protect any pe,son's
<br />health 0' safety shall not give ,ise to a duty of care on the pan of a public
<br />entity 0' public employee whe,e n.one othe,wise existed. In addition. the
<br />enfo,cemem of 0' failu,e to enfo,ce any such policy 0' regulation or the
<br />me,e fact that an inspection was conducted in 1he cou'se of enfo,cing such
<br />policy 0' ,egulation shall not give,ise to a duty ofca,e whe,e none otherwIse
<br />existed; howeve,. in a situation in which sove,eign immunity 'has been
<br />waived in acco,dance with the p,ovisions of this anicle. nothing shall be
<br />deemed to foreclose the assumption of a duty of care by a public entity
<br />0' public employee when the public entity 0' public employee ,equi,es any
<br />pe,son to perform any act as the ,esult of such an inspection 0' as the ,esult
<br />of the application of such policy 0' ,egulation, Nothing in this section shall
<br />be construed to ,elieve a public entity of a duty of ca,e exp,essly imposed
<br />unde, othe, statutory provision.
<br />(2) Nothing in this anicle shall be deemed to c,eate any dUlY .ofca,e.
<br />
<br />Sou,ce: L. 86. p. 876. ~ 6.
<br />
<br />,;:
<br />
<br />\'lctim. Leake v. Cain. ~~O P.2d 152 (Colo.
<br />1986): Whitcomb \'. Cil~' and County of Dcn-
<br />"C'. 731 P,ld 749fColo, App, 19861,
<br />For'purposes of Ih~ special rd.llionship rule.
<br />police ol1iccrs do nOl act affirmatively until
<br />they act in some way which induces reliance
<br />on a promise. expressed or implied. that they
<br />will assist or protect the ,'ictim. Whitcomb v.
<br />City and County of Denver. 731 P.~d 749
<br />tColo, App, 19861.
<br />Police officers did not voluntarily assume
<br />ilO\' dut\' to stranded motorist where the'
<br />determined that there was no real emergency
<br />or hazard and alTered to call a tow truck but
<br />took no funher action and thus could not be
<br />held liable under the sped:ll relation'.hip rule
<br />(or subsequent assault sutTered by 1Il010ris1.
<br />Whitcomb v. Citv and County of Den\"\'r. 731
<br />P,2d 749lColo, ,~pp. 1986). .
<br />Police officers have qualified immunit~. when
<br />dealing with stranded motorist and l:o~lld not
<br />~ held liable for subseQuc"nt assault sulfered
<br />
<br />I):
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />'/I.
<br />'If
<br />,<
<br />
<br />,c
<br />m
<br />,h
<br />n
<br />
<br />~l-
<br />
<br />J'
<br />'"
<br />
<br />r-
<br />"~ l
<br />
<br />.t-
<br />
<br />..,
<br />h.
<br />,r
<br />:1-
<br />.\:
<br />
<br />'r.
<br />o
<br />J
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />.r'
<br />
<br />I...
<br />
<br />'g
<br />,~
<br />"
<br />~1-
<br />'r
<br />,r'
<br />,r'
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />,d
<br />"
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />E,'en IhouRh Iitenerally then" is no dUlY to IIro--
<br />1f('1 '1tudents off' the school premis~s. whclher a
<br />..chool may. through its actions :lnd policies.
<br />undenake such a duty I in thiS case rules and
<br />regulations reslrlcting tr:J\'d to school by bicy.
<br />deliS a (",ctual question to be determined by
<br />the Judge or Jury. JelTcrson County School
<br />DISt. R.I .... Justus. 7~5 I) ~d 767 fColo.
<br />I ~S6Mcase arose prior 10 cnactmenl ur Ihis
<br />\cctlonl.
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />',)
<br />'J
<br />
<br />,r
<br />
<br />,ct
<br />'le
<br />
<br />by the motorist in the 3bscnce of conducl
<br />which was willful. malicious. or intendL'd
<br />harm. Whitcomb ~. CiIV 3nd Counlv of Den-
<br />"cr, 7 J I P,ld 749 (Colo:,~pp, 1986), .
<br />Claims askinR: (or orders (or water !iel'\'lces
<br />cannol lie in tort. They constitute in e1Tect a
<br />mandamus action. Jones v. Northeast
<br />Our3ngo Water Dist.. 622 P,.:!d 92 (Colo. App.
<br />1980).
<br />O~ration of public water (acility. Condem-
<br />nation of lishing rights for recreational us~
<br />does not fall within this exception to sovereign
<br />immunil~ Aurora v. Commerce Group Corp...
<br />694 P.2d Jg2lColo. App. 1984).
<br />Statutory Iimitalion on judltmenl in
<br />~ 24-10-114 is not an affirmathe derense 3nd is
<br />nOI waived ifnot prescnlcd in thc plcadings. al
<br />trial. or in a mOlion for a new trial. City of Co I-
<br />orado Springs \'. Gladin. 198 Colo. 333. 599
<br />P,:d 907 (1979"
<br />Applied in Gray"". City of Manitou Springs.
<br />4) Colo, App, bO, SQ8 P,2d ;~71In9),
<br />
<br />School district did not assume dUly to pro\'ide
<br />l.ro..sin~ guards at an Intcrscclion in the morn-
<br />109 when kindcrgartcners were walking home
<br />~\"en lhough crossing guards were placed al the
<br />intersection in the afternoon. Jefferson
<br />CounlY School Dist. R.l \". Gilbert. 7:5 I).~d
<br />77~ (Colo. I ~861(case arose prior to I.'nact.
<br />menlofthisst.'ttionl.
<br />
|