MacKinney v. City of Tucson
299 P.3d 1282
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- MacKinney slipped at a city-owned golf course in November 2009, injuring his leg and ankle.
- He sued the City of Tucson and the golf course for negligent maintenance and design of the walkway to the seventh tee.
- The City moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under Arizona's recreational-use statute, § 33-1551.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, later clarifying the golf course was not a covered premises and that fee status might be nominal.
- At trial, the jury awarded MacKinney $180,000, with 70% fault allocated to him and the city liable for $54,000.
- On appeal, the court vacated and remanded to resolve whether the golf course constitutes a ‘premises’ and whether the fee was nominal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a golf course qualifies as 'premises' under § 33-1551(C)(3) (1998). | MacKinney argued golf courses are not listed but are not immunized by Walker-type limits. | City contends golf courses are within the broad 'other similar lands' category and thus are premises. | Golf course is a premises under § 33-1551(C)(3) (1998). |
| Whether MacKinney was a 'recreational user' under § 33-1551(C)(4) given fee payment. | MacKinney was a recreational user because the activity was outdoor recreation; fourth element satisfied if nominal fee decision applies. | The fee payment status controls whether he is a recreational user; paid through a third party or as admission should negate status. | Status as recreational user depends on whether the fee was nominal; remanded to determine. |
| Whether the fee paid to a third-party booking service affects recreational-user status. | Payment origin (city direct or third party) is not dispositive; party who pays can confer status. | Payment by a third party or via an independent venture should negate status unless nominal. | Not dispositive on its own; requires fact-specific analysis on nominality and offset purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phoenix v. Yarnell, 184 Ariz. 310 (Ariz. 1995) (summary-judgment review and public-immunity concepts used)
- Prince v. City of Apache Junction, 185 Ariz. 43 (App. 1996) (issues of statutory interpretation under recreational-use immunity analyzed de novo)
- Andresano v. County of Pima, 213 Ariz. 65 (App. 2006) (recreational-user status and statutory interpretation framework)
- Walker v. City of Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206 (App. 1989) (definition of premises and 'other similar lands' under early statute)
- Garza Rodriguez v. State, 164 Ariz. 107 (1990) (legislative amendments and interpretive presumptions on statutory changes)