Title: Beart v. City of Arvada
Citation: 412 P.2d 902
Docket Number: 20883
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 1966

412 P.2d 902 (1966) Reinhold C. BEART and Katherine Beart, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The CITY OF ARVADA, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, Gail H. Gilbert, individually and as Mayor of the City of Arvada, James L. Jensen, individually and as City Manager of the City of Arvada, Charles Weinrich, individually and as Acting Superintendent of Sewer and Water of the City of Arvada, W. H. Nicholas, individually and as Sewer Plant Superintendent of the City of Arvada, and R. F. Wheeler, Ray S. Fitzmorris, Manley I. Gray, Charles E. Rhyne, Joseph B. Weber, and Robert Joseph Sullivan, individually and as City Council of the City of Arvada, Defendants in Error. No. 20883. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. April 4, 1966. *903 Ronald Lee Cooke, Denver, for plaintiffs in error. Robert H. Sonheim, Dale Helm, Arvada, for defendants in error. MOORE, Justice. We refer to plaintiffs in error as the plaintiffs and to defendants in error as the defendants. The action was commenced by the plaintiffs who sought to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the illegal operation by the defendants of a sewer system and sewage disposal plant. Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief. It was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiffs owned real estate in the city of Arvada upon which they operated a business known as the East Valley Mobile Home Park; that Ralston Creek runs through the property owned by the plaintiffs; and that the stream also runs through adjoining real estate owned by the city of Arvada upon which a sewage disposal plant is located and operated by the city of Arvada. It is then alleged in the complaint: Additional claims for relief are based upon alleged impairment of plaintiffs' health and for recovery of medical expenses, maintenance by the defendants of a public and private nuisance, exemplary damages, taking of private property for public use without compensation, and loss of use of property without due process of law. The defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss" on the ground that the complaint "fails to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted." This motion was heard on February 5, 1963, and was sustained. The only thing that is disclosed by the record in connection with the ruling of the trial court is the entry of an order that "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss granted." The plaintiffs thereafter filed a "Petition for Rehearing or Motion for New Trial" which was denied by the trial court. At that time the trial court commented as follows: If the reason for dismissal of the action was insufficiency of the notice allegedly given to the city as set forth in paragraph 14 of the "First Cause of Action," then the trial court erred in reaching that conclusion. If the reason for dismissal was that the trial court purported to take "judicial notice a little bit about the situation" it is sufficient to state that "judicial notice" cannot be taken with regard to matters which the trial court had in mind. This must have been *905 apparent to the court because specific reference was made in the comments of the trial judge to the effect that he was "probably looking ahead at the evidence," and again, "However, I am sort of anticipating evidence, I imagine, in that." From any statement appearing of record we cannot ascertain with certainty the reasons upon which the court based its order of dismissal. Whatever they may have been we conclude that the facts alleged in the several separately stated counts were sufficient, if established by a preponderance of the evidence, to entitle the plaintiffs to relief. The Farmers Irrigation Company v. The Game and Fish Commission, 149 Colo. 318, 369 P.2d 557. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. FRANTZ and SCHAUER, JJ., concur.