Burnworth v. Adams County

Decision Date29 August 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90CA1271,90CA1271
Citation826 P.2d 368
PartiesDonald O. BURNWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADAMS COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

The Law Offices of Richard K. Rufner, Richard K. Rufner, Kitrina J. Anderson, Englewood, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert J. Loew, Adams County Atty., Rita M. Harrell, Asst. County Atty., Brighton, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion by Judge REED.

Plaintiff, Donald O. Burnworth, appeals from the judgment dismissing his claims against defendant, Adams County. We reverse and remand.

The amended complaint alleged that, in 1989, the county relocated a drain on the west side of plaintiff's property and that, as a result of the drain's relocation, plaintiff's property was damaged by the continual accumulation of debris and the deterioration of his driveway. Plaintiff further alleged that, although the county had replaced his driveway three times, the driveway continues to crack and split and water has begun to bubble through the cracks.

In his first claim for relief, plaintiff alleged that the county installed, operated, and maintained the drain in a careless and negligent manner, causing recurrent damage to his property. In his second claim for relief, plaintiff alleged that the county's installation and maintenance of the drain has resulted in a continuing nuisance because of the constant accumulation of debris, water, muck, silt, mildew, and foul odor. The third claim for relief alleged that, as a result of the county's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe anxiety and emotional distress.

The complaint sought both damages and an injunction requiring the county to move the drain so that water and debris would not run onto his property.

The county filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), asserting that plaintiff's claims were barred by the Governmental Immunity Act. The trial court granted the motion after determining that the drain was a "storm drain" or "surface water drain" and that the county had not waived its sovereign immunity for this type of facility pursuant to § 24-10-106, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A).

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims. He argues that the county's immunity has been waived with respect to actions concerning the operation and maintenance of storm drains pursuant to § 24-10-106(1)(f), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A). That section provides:

"Sovereign immunity is waived by a public entity in an action for injuries resulting from:

....

"(f) The operation and maintenance of any public water facility, gas facility, sanitation facility, electrical facility, power facility, or swimming facility by such public entity." (emphasis supplied).

Plaintiff contends that a storm drain constitutes either a "public water facility" or a "sanitation facility" within the meaning of this provision. We agree that a storm drain, operated and maintained by a county, is a "sanitation facility" for purposes of the Governmental Immunity Act.

If a plain reading of a statute does not reveal the legislative intent, we may interpret the statute by considering laws upon the same or similar subjects. Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. North Washington Fire Protection District, 772 P.2d 70 (Colo.1989); Colorado-Ute Electric Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission, 760 P.2d 627 (Colo.1988). Further, we must presume that the General Assembly intended a just and reasonable result when it enacted a statute. Colorado-Ute Electric Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission, supra.

Here, the term "sanitation facility" is not specifically defined in the Colorado statutes. However, the General Assembly has authorized counties to construct and operate "sewerage facilities." Section 30-20-402(1)(a) and (b), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12A). Such facilities include, by definition, "any ... devices used in the collection, treatment, or disposition of sewage ... or storm, flood, or surface drainage waters, including all inlets, collection, drainage, or disposal lines, intercepting sewers, joint storm and sanitary sewers...." Section 30-20-401(4), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12A). The same definition applies to municipal sewerage facilities. Section 31-35-401(6), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12B).

Similarly, the facilities which sanitation districts are authorized to provide include "storm or sanitary sewers, or both, flood and surface drainage, treatment and disposal works and facilities, and all necessary or proper equipment and appurtenances incident thereto." Section 32-1-103(18), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.).

In at least three cases decided since the enactment of the Governmental Immunity Act, this court has upheld actions against public entities arising from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Am. Numismatic Ass'n v. Cipoletti
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 3 March 2011
    ...See § 2–4–203(1)(d) (if a statute is ambiguous, a court may consider laws on the same or similar subjects); Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368, 369–70 (Colo.App.1991) (same), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in City of Colorado Springs v. Powell, 156 P.3d 461, 468 (......
  • City of Colorado Springs v. Powell
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 9 April 2007
    ...(determining that cross-pan of storm water drainage system was a "sanitation facility" within CGIA); Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368, 370 (Colo.App.1991) (ruling storm drainage facility constituted a "sanitation facility" under We regard the General Assembly's decision not to alter ......
  • City of Colorado Springs v. Powell, No. 01SC87.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 17 June 2002
    ...Scott v. City of Greeley, 931 P.2d 525 (Colo.App. 1996); Smith v. Town of Estes Park, 944 P.2d 571 (Colo.App.1996); Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368 (Colo.App. 1991). In the first of these decisions, Burnworth, the court looked to other provisions in the Colorado Revised Statutes in ......
  • Powell v. City of Colorado Springs, 03CA2030.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 8 September 2005
    ...had, some ten years earlier, concluded that a storm drainage facility was a "sanitation facility" under the GIA. Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368 (Colo.App.1991). And although the General Assembly amended the GIA several times after the Burnworth case was decided, none of those amend......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Changing Concept of Governmental Immunity
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 23-3, March 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...942 (Colo. 1990). 20. Montes v. Hyland Hills Park & Recreation District, 849 P.2d 852 (Colo.App. 1992). 21. Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368 (Colo.App. 1991). 22. Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993); see also Cline v. Rabson, 862 P.2......
  • Interpreting the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 26-2, February 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...1992) (malfunctioning golf cart not a dangerous condition). 29. See Gallegos, supra, note 10 (water meter pit); Burnworth v. Adams County, 826 P.2d 368 (Colo.App. 1991) facility includes storm drain or surface water drain for purposes of waiver of immunity). 30. Publ. #134 at 140-141. The c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT