Young v. Brighton School District 27J, 2014 CO 32

In August 2008, minor C.Y. slipped on a puddle on a concrete walkway at a public elementary school and suffered a serious head injury; plaintiffs (Youngs) sued Brighton School District 27J for premises liability.
The District moved to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), asserting sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA); Youngs argued immunity was waived under the CGIA's "recreation area" waiver, § 24-10-106(1)(e).
The trial court rejected the icy-walkway waiver (§ 24-10-106(1)(d)(III)) without an evidentiary finding, then held a Trinity hearing and found the walkway qualified as a "public facility" in a "recreation area," denying the District's motion.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the icy-walkway waiver (specific to walks leading to public buildings) precluded consideration of other waivers and, because the injury was from a puddle (not snow/ice), immunity remained.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether CGIA waivers are mutually exclusive and (2) whether the walkway qualifies as a "public facility" under the recreation-area waiver; it reversed the court of appeals on the first issue but affirmed dismissal on the second.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the CGIA waiver provisions mutually exclusive such that one specific waiver (icy-walkway) precludes consideration of other waivers?	Youngs: No — multiple waivers may be alternative bases; the trial court properly considered the recreation-area waiver.	District: Yes — the specific icy-walkway waiver governs injuries on walkways and bars consideration of broader waivers.	The CGIA waivers are not mutually exclusive; multiple waivers may be triggered and courts may consider alternative waivers.
Does the recreation-area waiver (§ 24-10-106(1)(e)) apply because the walkway is a "public facility located in any ... recreation area"?	Youngs: The walkway, adjacent to and used by children accessing the playground, is part of the recreation area and thus a public facility.	District: The walkway is not a "public facility" or component of the playground; it is a transit path with multiple non-recreational purposes.	The walkway is neither a "public facility" in itself nor a component of the playground facility; the recreation-area waiver does not apply, so immunity remains.

Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993) (trial court may hold evidentiary hearing to resolve CGIA jurisdictional facts)
Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000) (statutory construction principles; strict construction of immunity, broad for waivers)
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001) (CGIA shields public entities except where waivers apply)
Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo. 1998) (waiver provisions construed deferentially for victims; immunity strictly)
Montes v. Hyland Hills Park & Recreation Dist., 849 P.2d 852 (Colo. App. 1992) (courts may consider multiple CGIA waiver provisions)
Seder v. City of Ft. Collins, 987 P.2d 904 (Colo. App. 1999) (same)
Curtis v. Hyland Hills Park & Recreation Dist., 179 P.3d 81 (Colo. App. 2007) (same)
Norsby v. Jensen, 916 P.2d 555 (Colo. App. 1995) (illustrates irreconcilable statutory conflict where a later, specific statute insulated liability despite a CGIA waiver)