The opinion
HALL, Chief Justice
(concurring in the result):
I agree that the doctrine of governmental immunity has no application in this case. I base my conclusion, however, not on the Court’s holdings in Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp. 1 and Johnson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2 but on statutory language which specifically waives immunity in a case such as this.
U.C.A., 1953, 63-30-9 provides as follows:
Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is waived for any injury caused from a dangerous or defective condition of any public building, structure, dam, reservoir or other public improvement. Immunity is not waived for latent defective conditions.
Clearly, the blocked sewer line which allegedly caused plaintiff’s damage in the in *740 stant case is a public improvement. In Parrish v. Layton City Corp., 3 this Court held that damages incurred from defective conditions of a sewer drain fell under the purview of this section. 4
The exception to the waiver of immunity is where “latent defective conditions” are involved. In Vincent v. Salt Lake County, 5 we held that a latent defect is one which is not discoverable by a reasonable inspection. Whether the blockage which caused plaintiff’s damage was discoverable is clearly an issue to be determined in a trial of plaintiff’s negligence claim.
I therefore concur that the summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint was improperly granted. I too would reverse and remand for further proceedings.
HOWE, J., concurs in the opinion of HALL, C. J.
. Utah, 605 P.2d 1230 (1980).
. Utah, 629 P.2d 432 (1981).
. Utah, 542 P.2d 1086 (1975).
. See also, Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P.2d 741 (1971).
. Utah, 583 P.2d 105 (1978).'