Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4I <br />S <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />l0 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />..17. <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />i <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />! 25 <br />510 <br />• <br />• <br />I and performed the work in a reasonable manner to the extent that <br />it was, that the work was contemplated. Accordingly, the <br />Court finds no basis for the contention that the county somehow <br />has continuing liability because, of the work. Any defect in the <br />county work was clearly evident, from inspection. I don't think <br />it's a latent defect, <br />The St. Vrain Creek or St. Vrain River, however you <br />refer to it, is a substantial stream. It's clearly visible what <br />its course was, and the plaintiffs--it's probably unfortunate <br />they did not have the question analyzed before they purchased the <br />property--in addition to which it would appear the <br />susceptibility to the flood probably was reflected in the <br />purchase price of the property which was paid. Now, accordingly, <br />the Court finds no actionable negligence on the part of Weld <br />County, with one exception, and that exception vas the manner in <br />which they operated this gravel pit and in which they maintained <br />.. .: ... <br />a cut in the gravel pit. "" "" "" <br />Now, I don't think there is strict liability for the <br />operation of gravel pits. I don't think the outcome of this <br />would be any different if there were strict liability or if there <br />weren't, but I don't think there is strict liability. As I say, <br />at least my impression would be whether there was strict <br />liability or whether it's based on negligence, and I do find the i <br />county was guilty of ordinary negligence, not reckless negligence; <br />in the operation of the gravel pit and in the maintenance of this <br />