Court Opinion

ID: 9849852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:47:49.483903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:27.362235
License: Public Domain

Judge JONES
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The trial court found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), §24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S.1997, and dismissed the complaint on that basis. The majority affirms that dismissal on the basis that City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, 916 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1996) [Gallegos] is controlling.
In my view, however, elements of the dissenting opinion in Gallegos apply here, and there are significant differences between this case and Gallegos. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment.
In Gallegos, the Supreme court determined, based on the facts there, that the waiver of sovereign immunity vis-a-vis a “public water facility,” as expressed in the GIA, does not encompass a privately owned and maintained water meter pit located on *317private property in Denver. In so ruling, the court noted that: “[OJwnership of the water meter pits is not dispositive [as to the issue of immunity].” City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, supra, 916 P.2d at 512.
Nevertheless, in my view, the fact that, here, the water meter pit at issue is publicly owned, operated, and maintained, even if located on private property, is a critical distinction that I believe, renders Gallegos not controlling.
I consider the facts here as being closer to those in Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368 (Colo.App.1991). There, a division of this court determined that a storm drain that had been relocated onto a private landowner’s property was a “public water facility.”
The GIA provides that: “Sovereign immunity is waived by a public entity in an action for injuries resulting from: ... The operation and maintenance of any public water facility....” Section 24-10-106(1)®, C.R.S. 1997.
Thus, the public entity in Bumworth was not immune from suit because its “public water facility,” though located on private property, was operated and maintained by the public entity and was, therefore, seen as operating for the benefit of the entire public.
The Gallegos court spoke of significant differences in the Bumtvorth case that put it outside of the ambit of Gallegos. The court opined:
Bumworth ... is distinguishable from the current case because it involved a storm drain that had been located onto a landowner’s property. The storm drain in that case was both operated and maintained by a county_ Furthermore, despite its location on private property, the storm drain was operated for the benefit of the general public, and not just for the benefit of the property on which it was located. The location of the storm drain on private property thus did not alter its benefit to the public.
City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, supra, 916 P.2d at 511.
The elements that distinguish Bumworth from Gallegos, I believe, also distinguish Gallegos from this case. Certainly, to the extent that an instrumentality on private property, owned, operated, and maintained by a public entity is determined to be a public water facility operated “for the benefit of the public,” Section 37-60-126(l)(b), C.R.S.1997, as in Bumworth, such may also be a public facility operated for the benefit of the public here. In Bumworth, a major, though not dispositive, factor as to why the storm drain was held to be a public water facility is that it was owned, operated, and maintained by a public entity.
Such being the case, under similar circumstances of ownership and maintenance, a water meter pit that directs water onto private property may be a public water facility in the logical way that a drain that directs water off of private property is also a public water facility.
Thus, I would hold that it was error for the trial court to rule that the City here was immune from suit because the water meter pit is not a public facility operated for the benefit of the public.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.