441 P.3d 439
Ariz.2019Background
- Encanto Adventures (Encanto) operated children’s rides at Enchanted Island in Encanto Park under a 1991 concession agreement with the City of Phoenix; the agreement also obliged Encanto to maintain an adjacent unfenced "piñata area."
- Normandin paid for a party package at Enchanted Island; Encanto directed her to the public piñata area, hung and operated the piñata, and led her to the area for the activity.
- While walking in the piñata area, Normandin fell on a sprinkler-head depression and suffered injuries; she sued the City and Encanto for negligence/premises liability.
- The City and Encanto moved for summary judgment asserting recreational-use immunity under A.R.S. § 33-1551(A); the trial court granted, and the court of appeals affirmed as to both defendants.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Encanto qualifies as a “manager” under § 33-1551(A) and is therefore immune; the Court limited its analysis to that dispositive issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Encanto is a “manager” under A.R.S. § 33-1551(A) | Encanto’s maintenance and operational role over the piñata area makes it a manager and thus immune | Encanto claims concessionary maintenance, inspection, and control activities render it a "manager" entitled to immunity | Encanto is not a “manager”; maintenance alone does not confer authority to open/close land for recreational use, so no immunity under § 33-1551(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Glazer v. State, 237 Ariz. 160 (discussing de novo statutory interpretation review)
- Ward v. State, 181 Ariz. 359 (interpreting recreational-use immunity and finding lack of authority to control access defeats immunity)
- Smith v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 195 Ariz. 214 (rule that statutes limiting common-law liability must be strictly construed)
- Hayes v. Continental Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264 (avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings when statutory resolution suffices)
- Champie v. Castle Hot Springs Co., 27 Ariz. 463 (background on property control and exclusion)
- Dickey ex rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 205 Ariz. 1 (statutory purpose to encourage opening land for recreation)
- Stramka v. Salt River Recreation, Inc., 179 Ariz. 283 (concessionaires that merely use land for profit do not necessarily further statutory purpose)
- Wilks v. Manobianco, 237 Ariz. 443 (statutory interpretation principles)