425 P.3d 243
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- Normandin injured her ankle in a grassy "piñata area" adjacent to Enchanted Island in Encanto Park while assisting her child with a piñata at a birthday party hosted under a paid "Pete’s Package."
- The City licensed a concession area (Concession Premises) to Encanto (and its predecessor) by agreement that required the concessionaire to construct, operate, and maintain the rides and to "maintain the Concession Premises in good order and repair," which the parties treated as including the piñata area.
- Normandin paid $287 for a private party package that excluded a piñata and did not provide any refund or discount if the piñata activity was not used; she supplied her own piñata and club and was required to break the piñata outside the fenced Enchanted Island.
- Normandin sued the City and Encanto for simple negligence based on the alleged sprinkler-head divot; the defendants moved for summary judgment invoking A.R.S. § 33-1551 (Arizona’s recreational-use immunity).
- The superior court granted summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Encanto qualified as a "manager" under § 33-1551, Normandin was a recreational user because she paid no fee to enter the piñata area, and the statute is constitutional as applied to Encanto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Encanto is a protected entity under § 33-1551 (e.g., "manager") | Encanto did not qualify as a manager; its maintenance was voluntary/self-interested and it waived any manager claim | Agreement and 25 years of conduct show Encanto had contractual duty and control to maintain Concession Premises (including piñata area) | Encanto is a "manager" under § 33-1551 and is entitled to immunity unless wilful/gross negligence proven |
| Whether Normandin was a "recreational user" (fee/nominal fee issue) | Payment of $287 for the party package made her a commercial customer, excluding recreational-user status | Package did not include admission to park or piñata area; no part of fee was paid to enter the premises for the piñata activity | She was a recreational user: no part of the fee was paid to enter or to conduct the piñata activity (nominal fee rule inapplicable) |
| Whether § 33-1551 violates the Anti‑Abrogation Clause as applied to Encanto | Statute unconstitutionally abrogates right to sue a private party for simple negligence | Encanto acted as the City's agent performing a governmental function; no common-law right to sue such an agent for simple negligence existed at constitution adoption | No violation: because Encanto acted as agent for municipal governmental function, anti‑abrogation clause is not implicated |
| Whether § 33-1551 violates Equal Privileges-and-Immunities or is an unconstitutional special law | Statute denies equal access or grants special privileges to certain private entities | Classification (recreational users; owners/managers who open land) is rationally related to legitimate objectives and is inclusive/elastic | Statute is constitutional under equal-privileges and special‑law analysis; classification is rational, legitimate, and elastic |
Key Cases Cited
- MacKinney v. City of Tucson, 231 Ariz. 584 (App.) (summary judgment and interpretation of § 33-1551)
- Andresano v. County of Pima, 213 Ariz. 65 (App.) (standards for viewing facts/inferences on summary judgment)
- Prince v. City of Apache Junction, 185 Ariz. 43 (App.) (fee-payment and recreational-user analysis)
- Dickey ex rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 205 Ariz. 1 (2003) (municipal park operation as governmental function; anti‑abrogation analysis)
- Ramirez v. Health Partners of S. Ariz., 193 Ariz. 325 (App.) (presumption of constitutionality; burden on challenger)
- Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., L.L.C., 215 Ariz. 589 (App.) (agency principles; when agency is a question of law)
- Gallardo v. State, 236 Ariz. 84 (2014) (three-part test for determining whether a statute is an unconstitutional special law)