Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs
327 P.3d 891
Colo.2014Background
- Marilyn Daniel walked across the public Valley Hi Golf Course parking lot in Colorado Springs in 2009, stepped in a hole, and fractured her hip. She sued the City of Colorado Springs in premises liability.
- The City moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), asserting sovereign immunity.
- Daniel argued the City waived immunity under the CGIA recreation-area waiver (§ 24-10-106(1)(e)) for "dangerous condition of any ... public facility located in any park or recreation area maintained by a public entity."
- The trial court denied the City’s motion without factual findings; the court of appeals reversed relying on Jones v. City & County of Denver, which had treated parking lots as excluded.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a public golf-course parking lot can be a "public facility located in" a "recreation area" under the CGIA and remanded for further proceedings on unresolved factual elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daniel) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does a parking lot serving a public golf course qualify as a "public facility" under the recreation-area waiver? | The parking lot is accessible and operated for the benefit of the public and thus is a "public facility." | Parking lots are categorically excluded from the waiver (per Jones). | Yes. The lot is "public" (accessible and operated for public benefit) and is a "facility" — legislative history and CGIA purposes show parking lots fall within "facility." Court overruled Jones to that extent. |
| 2. Is the parking lot "located in" a "recreation area" for waiver purposes? | The golf-course grounds (including the parking lot) are a recreation area; the lot lies within those boundaries. | The lot is not within a park/recreation area for waiver application (court of appeals view). | Yes, using a three-step test: (1) identify contiguous property that plausibly promotes recreation; (2) ask whether the public entity's primary purpose for that area is recreation; (3) determine whether the facility lies within the area's boundaries. Applied here, the lot is located in the recreation area. |
| 3. Does the record permit a final waiver determination? | N/A — plaintiff sought waiver. | N/A — defendant sought dismissal on immunity grounds. | No. The Court remanded because factual questions remain (whether the City "maintained" the facility and whether a dangerous condition caused injury). |
| 4. How should courts assess the "located in a recreation area" question going forward? | N/A (implicit) | N/A (implicit) | The Court mandated the three-step framework (identify putative recreation area, assess public entity's primary purpose, check facility location within boundaries) for future cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, 916 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1996) (defines "public" facility factors: accessibility and benefit to the public)
- Jones v. City & County of Denver, 833 P.2d 870 (Colo. App. 1992) (earlier appellate decision treating parking lots as outside the recreation-area waiver; overruled in part)
- Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000) (statutory construction principles; broadly construe CGIA waivers)
- Swieckowski v. City of Ft. Collins, 934 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1997) (governmental immunity implicates subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001) (de novo review when facts undisputed and issue is one of law)
- Corsentino v. Cordova, 4 P.3d 1082 (Colo. 2000) (treatment of prior CGIA waivers and precedent)
- State v. Moldovan, 842 P.2d 220 (Colo. 1992) (CGIA waivers serve to allow redress for public-entity injuries)