District Court, J efferson County The Honorable Christopher C. Zenisek Civil Action No. 12-CV-3705
Plaintiffs-Appellees: JENNIFER ACKERMAN, DAVID SCHEUERMANN, FORREST HUDSPETH, and ADAM KINNARD,
v.
Defendant-Appellant: CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER.
Barry A. Schwartz, #17981 J amesy C. Owen, #44926 Assistant City Attorneys Denver City Attorneys Office Litigation Section 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. No. 1108 Denver, CO 80202-5332 Telephone: (720) 913-3100 Facsimile: (720) 913-3182 Barry.Schwartz@denvergov.org J amesy.Owen@denvergov.org Attorneys for the Defendant-Appellant
REPLY BRIEF
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in those rules. Specifically, I certify that this brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g) because it contains no more than 5,700 words (it contains approximately 5,698 words).
s/ Jamesy C. Owen J amesy C. Owen Counsel for Defendant-Appellant, City and County of Denver
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................ ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... iv, v, vi
A. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that their injuries were caused by a dangerous condition as that phrase is defined by the CGIA ........................................... 2
1. The two incidents on which Plaintiffs rely do not support the district courts conclusion that Denver had actual or constructive notice that a natural rockfall might injure concertgoers ......................................... 3
a. Neither actual nor constructive notice is established by the discovery of a rock in the Amphitheatre in 1999 or of the rocks that fell into a construction zone there in 2007. ............................ 4
b. The case law Plaintiffs cite in support of their notice argument is inapposite ................................................................................... 8
2. The district court erred in concluding that Denvers failure to inspect Creation Rock in 2010 was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries ................................................................................................. 10
3. Plaintiffs injuries were not caused by negligent maintenance of the Amphitheatre ....................................................................................... 14
4. The mere fact that the Amphitheatre was designed to be placed next to Creation Rock does not render the combination of them a public facility. ................................................................................................. 16
ii
B. Plaintiffs injuries were caused by the natural condition of unimproved property, for which there is no waiver under the CGIA ................................ 18
1. Denver retains immunity under the natural condition of any unimproved property provision of the CGIA because Creation Rock is not integral and essential to the use and enjoyment of Red Rocks Amphitheatre .................................................................... 19
2. Creation Rock is not improved property ......................................... 21
3. This Court should not disturb the balance embodied in the CGIA between encouraging governments to provide public facilities in natural surroundings, while preserving limited public resources ....... 23
INTRODUCTION The issue before the Court is whether Denver retains governmental immunity in the face of Plaintiffs claims for damages resulting from injuries they sustained when rocks fell into the Red Rocks Amphitheatre (the Amphitheatre) during a September 2011 concert. The CGIA waives immunity where the dangerous condition of a public facility located in a park causes injury. C.R.S. 24-10-106(1)(e). But there is no waiver for injuries resulting from the natural condition of unimproved property. Id. The district court erred in denying Denvers Motion to Dismiss because the evidence does not show that Plaintiffs injuries resulted from the dangerous condition of a public facility as defined by the CGIA. See C.R.S. 24-10- 103(1.3). First, the record does not demonstrate that Denver had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of Creation Rock. Id. Second, even if Denver could be deemed to have had notice of a dangerous condition of Creation Rock, the record does not support the courts finding that Denvers failure to inspect prior to the 2011 concert season proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries. Third, Plaintiffs injuries resulted from the inherent risk in the design of the Amphitheatre, rather than its negligent maintenance. See id. Fourth, the district court erred in determining that Creation Rock is so essential to the 1
function of the Amphitheatre as to render it part of a public facility. For these reasons, Plaintiffs arguments are fatally flawed because they have not met their burden of establishing Creation Rock constitutes a dangerous condition. Plaintiffs claims must also fail under the CGIA exception that retains immunity where an injury is caused by the natural condition of unimproved property. C.R.S. 24-10-106(1)(e). Despite the installation of minimal safety devices, Creation Rock is unimproved property, and it is not essential to the Amphitheatres purpose as a music venue. For these reasons, Denver respectfully asks this Court to reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaints. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that their injuries were caused by a dangerous condition as that phrase is defined by the CGIA.
As relevant here, the CGIA waives governmental immunity only if the dangerous condition of a public facility in a park causes an injury. C.R.S. 24-10- 106(1)(e). To establish a waiver of sovereign immunity because of a dangerous condition, Plaintiffs must show that they were injured by a dangerous condition that resulted from: (1) the physical condition of a public facility, (2) which constitutes an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of the public, (3) which the 2
public entity knew existed or should have known existed in the exercise of reasonable care, and (4) the negligent act or omission of the public entity proximately caused such condition. C.R.S. 24-10-103(1.3); 24-10-106(1)(e); Padilla v. School Dist. No.1, 25 P.3d 1176, 1180-81 (Colo. 2001). The record does not support a finding that Plaintiffs have met any of the elements of the dangerous condition definition in the CGIA. As a result, the district court erred in finding that immunity is waived. 1. The two incidents on which Plaintiffs rely do not support the district courts conclusion that Denver had actual or constructive notice that a natural rockfall might injure concertgoers. 1
A dangerous condition cannot exist for CGIA purposes unless the public entity knew or should have known of its existence. C.R.S. 24-10-103(1.3); see Padilla, 25 P.3d at 1180. The record establishes neither actual nor constructive notice of a dangerous condition of Creation Rock. It is not knowledge of the condition, activities, or circumstances that gives rise to liability; it is the danger of which the owner actually knew or should have known. McIntire v. Trammell Crow, Inc., 172 P.3d 977, 980 (Colo. App. 2007). Thus, for example, a defendants mere knowledge that ice and snow tend to 1 Denver does not concede that the September 2011 rockfall was natural. Rather, as Plaintiffs allege in their Complaints, CF, pp.6, 91, 103, trespassers who at least one of Plaintiffs saw on Creation Rock that night apparently caused the rocks to fall. 3
accumulate does not satisfy the CGIAs requirement of actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition that injured plaintiff. Smith v. Town of Snowmass Village, 919 P.2d 868, 871 (Colo. App. 1996)); accord Johnson v. Town of Grand Lake, No. 05-cv-1169-WDM, 2006 WL 686487, slip op. at *2-3 (D. Colo. March 17, 2006) (unpublished) (same; distinguishing Smith fromMartinez v. Weld County School Dist. RE-1, infra, and finding that the town had no actual or constructive notice of problems with the particular defective board on the boat dock that broke, injuring plaintiff). Here, there is no evidence in the record upon which notice of a dangerous condition might be found with respect to Creation Rock and Denvers general knowledge that rocks tend to fall cannot suffice. a. Neither actual nor constructive notice is established by the discovery of a rock in the Amphitheatre in 1999 or of the rocks that fell into a construction zone there in 2007.
As they did in the district court, Plaintiffs bank their argument on two events that allegedly provided notice to Denver of a dangerous condition on Creation Rock: (1) the discovery of a single rock on the stairs near Creation Rock in 1999, and (2) several rocks that fell into an active construction zone near Creation Rock while workers were using rock excavation equipment in 2007. Answer Brief at 9, 27-28. Their reliance on those events is misplaced. 4
As to the first incident, the origin of the single rock found lying on the stairs near Creation Rock is unknown; indeed, it is uncontroverted that nobody saw it fall or knew how it came to be there. R.Tr. (8/7/13), pp.141:22-142:19. Although discovery of that single rock on the Amphitheatres stairs does not demonstrate a dangerous condition of Creation Rock, see, e.g., Branco Eastern Co. v. Leffler, 482 P.2d 364, 367 (1971) (establishing elements of res ipsa loquitor, which elements are not satisfied here) Red Rocks Facility Superintendant J oseph Davis, in an excess of caution, directed his staff to check the area regularly so that Denvers rock mitigation contractor, Yenter Companies, could be notified if a problem presented itself. R.Tr. (8/7/13), pp.141:22-142:19. No such problem did present itself, and indeed Plaintiffs presented no evidence whatsoever establishing (or even suggesting) that any rocks fell from Creation Rock during the ensuing eight years. Despite conceding that the single rock was found on the stairs beneath Creation Rock, Plaintiffs ask this Court to speculate that the rock must have fallen from Creation Rock, thereby providing notice to Denver that rocks could fall from Creation Rock again. Answer Brief at 9, 27-28. But there simply is no evidence to justify such speculation. As for the 2007 incident, when several rocks fell into an active construction zone near Creation Rock, the record establishes that at the time rocks fell, workers 5
were using vibration equipment and various things to excavate rock in that area and by the very nature of the work to dislodge the rocks abutting Creation Rock. R.Tr. (8/7/13), pp.136:22-141:15, 143:16-23; R.Ex. 53, pp.60, 141. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Answer Brief at 9, no one was hit by these rocks or otherwise injured. 2 Id. More importantly, the only significance of this event is that it establishes that rocks could become loose and fall into the Amphitheatre when construction work is undertaken using vibration equipment. Thus, Plaintiffs contention that the 2007 event should have put Denver on notice of a dangerous condition of Creation Rock is not supported. See Answer Brief at 9-10, 28-29. Again, although Mr. Davis concluded that the vibrating excavation equipment caused the 2007 rockfall and contrary to Plaintiffs misrepresentation, see Answer Brief at 11, 28-29 he again followed a precautionary approach and called Yenter to inspect and perform mitigation work on Creation Rock to ensure that there was no danger caused by the construction. R.Tr. (8/7/13), pp.140:23- 141:21, R.Ex. 53, pp. 60, 141. 2 Twice in their Answer Brief, Plaintiffs claim that 2007 event involved rocks falling onto the RMA construction crew. Answer Brief at 9, 28. That is a gross mischaracterization. Mr. Davis testified unequivocally that those rocks did not fall on any people. R.Tr. (8/7/13), p.152:3-8. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary.
6
Additionally, Denver had several mechanisms in place by which Red Rocks employees monitored and reported any potential dangers or citizen injuries and by which citizens themselves could report concerns or injuries at the Amphitheatre or in Red Rocks Park. R.Tr. (8/7/13), pp.88:15-91:9, 92:1-95:2, 96:21-97:7, 99:21- 100:13, 108-114, 129:7-130-131:1. Notably, Denver never received any report of any concern or injury related to rocks falling into the Amphitheatre through these avenues prior to the September 2011 incident. Id. at 99:21-103:18, 110:6-114:12, 142:20-24, 163:20-164:3. See Smith, 919 P.2d at 871-72 (no actual or constructive notice where government employees authorized to receive complaints did not receive complaints of and did not know of dangerous condition at injury location). Moreover, general knowledge that rocks tend to fall from natural geological formations does not demonstrate notice under the CGIA. Id. (defendants mere knowledge that ice and snow tend to accumulate does not constitute knowledge or constructive knowledge of the ice build-up that injured plaintiff); accord Altairi v. Alhaj, 599 N.W.2d 537, 543-44 (Mich. App. 1999) (Insofar as plaintiff seeks to use general knowledge of local weather conditions to show that defendant should have known that ice lay under the snow on his steps, the same knowledge can be imputed to plaintiff.). 7
Denver did not have actual or constructive notice that a rockfall would injure concertgoers in the Amphitheatre and, therefore, Plaintiffs have not satisfied a required element of the CGIA dangerous condition definition. C.R.S. 24-10- 103(1.3). Thus, the district court erred, see Smith, 919 P.2d at 871, in finding and concluding that the 1999 and 2007 occurrences put Denver on notice of a dangerous condition. Denver therefore is entitled to sovereign immunity. b. The case law Plaintiffs cite in support of their notice argument is inapposite.
In support of their argument that Colorado law does not distinguish between general and specific knowledge of a condition and its dangerous nature, Answer Brief at 25, Plaintiffs rely on Luenberger v. City of Golden, 990 P.2d 1145 (Colo. App. 1999) and Martinez v. Weld County School Dist. RE-1, 60 P.3d 736 (Colo. App. 2002). That reliance is misplaced. In fact, the holding in Martinez demonstrates directly contrary to Plaintiffs position here that courts may distinguish between a public entitys general knowledge that a particular situation . . . may give rise to a risk of harm and the entity's specific knowledge that such a situation could arise in a particular area. Johnson, 2006 WL 686487, slip op. at *3. Martinez involved a slip-and-fall case on an icy sidewalk. 60 P.3d at 738. In affirming the trial courts denial of the school districts dismissal motion, the court found that evidence existed establishing that the school district knew from prior 8
experience that ice would accumulate at that location and that the area of the accident was a problem area where the build-up of ice was chronic and continuing. Id. at 741. Such evidence is missing in this case. Furthermore, Plaintiffs mischaracterize the holding in Luenberger, 990 P.2d 1145. Answer Brief at 25. In Luenberger, where the plaintiff sued the city for injuries arising from the condition of a half-pipe in a city park, the trial court did not make any findings regarding the CGIA arguments put forward by the city in its motion to dismiss, deciding the case on other grounds. Id. at 1147-48. Therefore, the court did not decide the notice issue but rather remanded to the district court for findings under the CGIA. Id. In dicta, the Luenberger court did note that [t]he mere fact that the City had not received prior notice of the precise harm that occurred here does not compel the conclusion that the City did not have either constructive or actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition of the half- pipe. Id. at 1148 (emphasis added). Luenberger is distinguishable because there the city did have notice of a dangerous condition of the half-pipe because a previous injury was caused by the half-pipe. Id. at 1146-1148. The city argued it did not have notice since it had not received complaints of accidents similar to the plaintiffs accident; the earlier injury was caused by the steel skin of the half-pipe and a different piece of the 9
half-pipe caused plaintiffs injury. Id. The court disagreed with this particular argument, stating (in dicta) that notice of the precise injury-causing mechanism in a park is not necessary to put the city on notice of a dangerous condition. Id. at 1148. Luenberger is inapposite in the instant case because Denver did not have any notice that rocks may fall from Creation Rock, injuring Plaintiffs. Mere general knowledge that rocks tend to fall from natural structures does not fulfill the CGIA notice requirement. See Smith, 919 P.2d at 871-72. 2. The district court erred in concluding that Denvers failure to inspect Creation Rock in 2010 was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.
Relying on Springer v. City & County of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 801 (Colo. 2000), the district court concluded that Denvers negligent failure to inspect Creation Rock in 2011 was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries in this case. CF, pp. 785-786. It is well-settled that a plaintiff cannot prevail on a negligence claim unless his or her injuries were proximately caused by the defendants negligence. C.R.S. 24-10-103(1.3); Curtis v. Hyland Hills Park & Rec. Dist., 179 P.3d 81, 84 (Colo. App. 2007). Even if Denver was negligent in failing to inspect Creation Rock annually, the district court clearly erred in finding that the negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries, for Plaintiffs did not prove that any alleged failure to inspect caused the rocks to fall in September 2011. 10
The law is well settled in Colorado that the proprietor of a public place is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons. Repka v. Rentalent, 477 P.2d 470, 471 (Colo. App. 1970) (nsop). The mere fact that an accident occurred does not imply causation on the part of the defendant. See, e.g., Western & A. R.R. v. Henderson, 279 U.S. 639, 642-43 (1929) (The mere fact of collision between a railway train and a vehicle at a highway grade crossing furnishes no basis for any inference as to whether the accident was caused by negligence of the railway company, or of the traveler on the highway, or of both, or without fault of any one. Reasoning does not lead from the occurrence back to its cause.); Brady v. Southern R.R. Co., 320 U.S. 476, 484 (1943); 3 Westland v. Gold Coin Mines Co., 101 F. 59, 64-65 (8th Cir. 1900) (applying Colorado law). Indeed, even [a] finding of negligence does not create liability on the part of a defendant unless that negligence caused the plaintiff's injury. Smith v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 749 P.2d 462, 464 (Colo. App. 1982); see Aurora v. Loveless, 639 P.2d 1061, 1063 (Colo. 1981). Accordingly, even if Denver could have performed inspections as often as Yenter recommended, the fact that annual inspections were not conducted does not demonstrate that the failure to do so proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries. This is especially so, given their allegations that the rockfall was caused by trespassers. CF, pp.6, 91, 103. 3 That proposition in Brady was adopted by this Court in Mendoza v. White Stores, Inc., 488 P.2d 90, 92 (Colo. App. 1971). 11
It is uncontroverted that, prior to the 2011 rockfall, on only two occasions in the history of the Amphitheatre the two occasions detailed above were rocks found in the Amphitheatre. Resting on the 1999 and 2007 occurrences, and noting that Denver did not perform maintenance on Creation Rock in 2006, Plaintiffs expert, Brendan Shine, concluded that Denver should have been on notice that when it failed to perform an inspection and mitigation one year, rocks were apt to fall the next year. Answer Brief at 13, 34-35. Had Denver performed an inspection and mitigation in 2011, he concluded, the rock fall, within a reasonable degree of scientific probability, would have been prevented. R.Tr. (7/8/13) p.77:16-23. Relying solely on that testimony, the district court found that, [i]n the years that rockfall mitigation was performed by Yenter, there are no reported incidents of rockfall. In years when mitigation has not been performed, incidents have occurred. CF, pp.780-781. Based on those findings, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs had satisfied their burden of proving causation. Id. at 785. The district court erred in making those findings and conclusions. First, as detailed above, it is uncontroverted that a natural rockfall did not occur in 2007; Plaintiffs presented no evidence credibly suggesting that the 2007 rockfall was caused by anything other than the use of vibrating rock excavation 12
equipment. Nor did Plaintiffs present any evidence tending to prove that an inspection to prevent natural rockfall at that time would have prevented that human-induced rockfall. And to the extent that Plaintiffs and the district court equate the lack of inspection in 2006 and 2010 with rockfall the following concert seasons, they do not explain the absence of rockfall in the other years in which there was no inspection (i.e., all years prior to 2007 as well as 2008, 2009, and 2010). Furthermore, after Yenter completed the mitigation on Creation Rock in 2007, no rockfall occurred in 2008, 2009, and 2010. In the case relied on by the district court, Springer, the plaintiff fell from her wheelchair after it struck a protruding threshold cover plate as she attempted to enter the Buell Theatre. 13 P.3d at 797. She brought a premises liability claim against Denver, which moved to dismiss under the CGIA because the theatre was built and maintained by an independent contractor. Id. at 797. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that Denvers duty to Springer was non-delegable and that, because her claim related to the theatres construction rather than its design the architectural plans called for a half-inch threshold, whereas the threshold plate protruded at approximately twice that height. Id. at 797. And with respect to causation, the court affirmed that a public entity can proximately cause a condition by failing to reasonably 13
discover and correct it, id. at 801, but immunity is waived only where the public entity was or should have been aware of it. That requirement was satisfied because Springer established that the particular threshold plate remained at that height for over four years prior to the accident. Id. at 799. Here, to the contrary, the record contains no evidence that Denver aware of the unsafe condition that injured Plaintiffs, so Denvers failure to discover and correct it did not proximately cause their injuries. There is no factual support for the district courts finding to the contrary. 3. Plaintiffs injuries were not caused by negligent maintenance of the Amphitheatre.
Nor do the facts presented to the district court demonstrate that Denver was negligent in maintaining or constructing the Amphitheatre. C.R.S. 24-10- 103(1.3); Springer, 13 P.3d at 799-801. Plaintiffs rely heavily on their assumption that Denvers allegedly deficient maintenance of the Amphitheatre led to their injuries. E.g., Answer Brief at 32, 34. They go into great detail regarding what portions of Creation Rock were inspected, when those inspections occurred, and 14
which recommendations suggest that Denver should have known of and prevented a rockfall. E.g., id. at 11-14, 31, 35. None of this is relevant. 4
Instead, the facts show that the original design of the Amphitheatre for which CGIA immunity is not waived allowed an inherent risk of rockfall into the concert arena. C.R.S. 24-10-103(1.3); Padilla, 25 P.3d at 1180-81; R.Tr. (8/7/13), p.18:12-22. CGIA immunity is not waived for injuries caused solely by the design of a public facility, even if that design was inadequate and led to an injury. Id. Nor does the CGIA require the government to upgrade, modernize, modify, or improve a design or make it safer, even if the design is risky and even if there are better alternatives. C.R.S. 24-10-103(2.5); Medina, 35 P.3d at 456- 57. Furthermore, a public entitys acceptance of the final design including the level of risk remaining at the end of the design phase determines the general state of being, repair, or efficiency of the [public facility] as initially constructed, which is what must be maintained by the government. Medina, 35 P.3d at 456-57. 5
4 Even if this discussion were relevant, Plaintiffs claim that Denver was negligent in maintaining the Amphitheatre, proximately causing the Plaintiffs injuries, must fail for the reasons set forth in the proximate cause section, supra.
5 While Medina dealt with injuries caused by the dangerous condition of roads, the same reasoning applies by analogy to dangerous conditions in all public facilities. See Medina, 35 P.3d at 456. 15
A certain level of risk was necessarily inherent in the design of the Amphitheatre from its inception, as would be the case for any facility situated in a natural area. R.Tr. (8/7/13), p.18:12-22. It is undisputed that the Amphitheatre was designed to be situated between two natural rock monoliths, Creation Rock and Ship Rock, in a geological hazard zone where theres a potential for any kind of natural rock fall to occur. Id. Plaintiffs presented no evidence to the contrary. Denver had (and has) no duty to upgrade, modernize, modify, or improve the design of the Amphitheatre to alleviate these inherent risks. C.R.S. 24-10- 103(2.5); Medina, 35 P.3d at 456-57. Indeed, Denver has not only preserved the Amphitheatre as initially constructed, but has gone above and beyond its obligations by making it even safer than it was originally designed to be. See, e.g., R.Tr. (8/7/13), 75:15-76:5. Sovereign immunity is not waived for the risk of rockfall inherent in the Amphitheatres design. Therefore, the district court erred in allowing Plaintiffs claims against Denver to stand. 4. The mere fact that the Amphitheatre was designed to be placed next to Creation Rock does not render the combination of them a public facility.
The Amphitheatre is a public facility for purposes of the CGIA, but Creation Rock is not, and Denvers decision to place the Amphitheatre next to 16
Creation Rock does not change that conclusion. This proposition is consistent with the courts decision in Rosales v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 89 P.3d 507, 510 (Colo. App. 2004); and Burnett v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, No. 11CA2141, 2013 WL 1245366, at *2 (Colo. App. March 28, 2013), cert. granted (Nov. 12, 2013), which examined whether a naturally occurring object such as a tree or rock formation is a component of a public facility. In Rosales, this Court held that if a public entity incorporates a tree into a facility in such a manner that it becomes both integral to the facility and essential for the intended use of the facility, that tree may become a component of the public facility. In Burnett, this Court clarified, holding that the mere fact that a park and a pre-existing, natural object that enhances attendees experiences in that park join to become a functional system is not enough, slip op. at *2. The natural object must be truly integral and essential. Although Creation Rock certainly benefits the concertgoers experience, it is not integral and essential to the music-listening experience indeed, concertgoers enjoy music without a rock monolith nearby in thousands of music venues worldwide. Certainly the monoliths add aesthetic value, but aesthetics alone are not enough to render a natural feature essential to and an integral part of a man- made facility. Id. Creation Rocks proximity next to the Amphitheatre does not 17
make it an essential component of the Amphitheatre, so it is not part of a public facility. B. Plaintiffs injuries were caused by the natural condition of unimproved property, for which there is no waiver under the CGIA.
Immunity is not waived for injuries caused by the natural condition of any unimproved property. C.R.S. 24-10-106(1)(e). Plaintiffs argue that Creation Rock is not the natural condition of unimproved property because it is integral to the Amphitheatre, rendering it a public facility, and because it has been improved through the installation of safety devices. Answer Brief at 22, 37. However, the district court erred in finding that Creation Rock did not fall under the natural condition of unimproved property provision because: (1) as detailed above, Creation Rock is not an integral feature of the Amphitheatre because it is not essential to the Amphitheatres intended purpose of hosting concerts, (2) the installation of minimal safety devices does not render Creation Rock improved property, and (3) the legislature enacted the provision to protect governments from liability, while encouraging them to provide public facilities in natural surroundings.
18
1. Denver retains immunity under the natural condition of any unimproved property provision of the CGIA because Creation Rock is not integral and essential to the use and enjoyment of Red Rocks Amphitheatre.
Creation Rock is the natural condition of unimproved property, and therefore, immunity is not waived under the CGIA. See C.R.S. 24-10-106(1)(e). In support of their argument to the contrary, Plaintiffs cite to the test enunciated in Rosales, which provides that a natural feature that is incorporated into a public facility such that it is an integral part of and essential to the intended use of the facility may become a component of that facility for the purposes of the CGIA. Rosales, 89 P.3d at 510; Answer Brief at 18-20. The Rosales test, however, is inapplicable to the instant case for the reasons below. Contrary to Plaintiffs characterizations, see Answer Brief at 4, 41-42, Creation Rock and Ship Rock are not affixed to, nor are they a part of the Amphitheatre. The Amphitheatre is a manmade facility that was placed between two pre-existing, naturally occurring geological formations. Denver certainly does not concede and the evidence in the record does not suggest that the Amphitheatre would not exist without the walls created by the two monoliths. Answer Brief at 14. Creation Rock and Ship Rock are two of many naturally occurring rock features in Red Rocks Park, much like trees abutting a campground are simply pieces of a larger, unimproved, natural park surrounding that manmade 19
campground, but are not themselves part of it. See Burnett 2013 WL 1245366, at *2. Furthermore, Creation Rock and Ship Rock are not essential to the Amphitheatres intended purpose of enjoying concerts. There is simply no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Creation Rock and Ship Rock are required in order for citizens to enjoy the Amphitheatre. There is no support for Plaintiffs argument that [t]o enjoy an event at the Amphitheatre, music reverberates between the two rock walls, such a proposition is not present at the location Plaintiffs cite, nor is evidence of this proposition present elsewhere in the record. 6 Answer Brief at 4, 21. Certainly the monoliths add aesthetic value, but aesthetics alone are not enough to render a natural feature essential to and an integral part of a man-made facility. See Burnett, 2013 WL 1245366, at *2. Concertgoers do not need the geological features for the essential purpose of the Amphitheatre, which is to enjoy concerts. Accordingly, Creation Rock cannot be considered an integral part of the Amphitheatre and immunity is not waived for Plaintiffs injuries. The trial court erred in finding otherwise. 6 Plaintiffs also cite Denvers Opening Brief for the proposition that even the name of the public facility, Red Rocks Amphitheatre, refers to the two Red Rocks, Creation Rock and Ship Rock. Answer Brief at 21. Denvers Opening Brief neither states nor implies that this is the case, nor could it. Rather, the name is based upon the red sandstone rocks found throughout Red Rocks Park. 20
2. Creation Rock is not improved property
As a geological feature existing in nature, Creation Rock is unimproved property subject to the natural conditions provision of the CGIA, and therefore, immunity is not waived in the instant case. Resting on J udge Carparellis dissent in Burnett, 2013 WL 1245366, Plaintiffs argue that Denver has improved Creation Rock, subjecting itself to liability, by hiring a rock mitigation company to inspect the rock formations and install certain safety devices. Answer Brief at 41. They fail to note the balance of that dissent: Unimproved property usually refers to real property that is in its natural state. Unimproved property typically contains a variety of features such as shrubs, trees, rocks, ruts, ditches, cliffs, and watercourses. When property is unimproved, these natural features have not been disturbed. Id. at *9 (Carparelli, J ., dissenting). Here, the record demonstrates that Denver has gone to great lengths to keep Creation Rock in its natural state; although some safety devices have been installed, the shrubs, trees, rocks, cliffs and other features remain. By Plaintiffs argument, Denver would have been better off doing nothing. By taking some safety precautions it had no duty to take, Plaintiffs insist, Denver undertook a duty to ensure the safety of all concertgoers and other visitors at the Amphitheatre. Colorado law does not support that contention. E.g., C.R.S. 24-10-106(1)(e), 21
24-10-106.5(1) (In order to encourage the provision of services to protect the public health and safety and to allow public entities to allocate their limited fiscal resources, a public entity or public employee shall not be deemed to have assumed a duty of care where none otherwise existed by the performance of a service or an act of assistance for the benefit of any person.). Moreover, it is undisputed that the rocks that injured Plaintiffs came from Creation Rock, Answer Brief at 2-3, but there is no evidence to show that any safety device was installed on the rock surface from which the rocks fell; in fact, Plaintiffs claim the opposite: that the rocks fell because they had not been inspected or mitigated with safety devices prior to the 2011 concert season. Answer Brief at 32. Taken to its end, Plaintiffs logic would require Denver either to install safety devices upon every rock surface near the Amphitheatre thereby destroying the very natural beauty the public seeks to enjoy, let alone the public coffers or permanently shut down Red Rocks Amphitheatre for fear of overwhelming liability. There are few who would benefit from such an outcome.
22
3. This Court should not disturb the balance embodied in the CGIA between encouraging governments to provide public facilities in natural surroundings, while preserving limited public resources.
Incentives played an important role in the balance the Colorado General Assembly undertook in codifying the CGIA. See Colorado Legislative Council (commissioned prior to the passage of the CGIA), Report to the Colorado General Assembly: Governmental Liability in Colorado, Research Publication No.134, at xxi-xxii (1968); CF, pp. 674-677. Our society values the human relationship with nature. Id. The General Assembly promotes this value by preserving and enhancing the human experience in nature through creation of public parks and public facilities set in natural areas. Id. The CGIA drafters recognized that governmental efforts to encourage citizens relationship with nature should be supported. Id. Thus, they created an exception to liability for injuries resulting from the natural condition of any unimproved property. Id.; C.R.S. 24-10-106(1)(e). The General Assembly explicitly limited liability in this context to encourage governments to provide these special, natural places for citizens. Id. In its Report to the General Assembly, the Colorado Legislative Council highlighted the incentives at play for public facilities in natural surroundings: [i]f immunity were waived with respect to injuries caused by the natural condition of any unimproved property the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of 23
defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use. It is desirable to permit the members of the public to use public property in its natural condition. In view of the limited funds available for the acquisition and improvement of property for recreational purposes, the committee concluded that it is not unreasonable to expect persons who voluntarily use unimproved property in its natural condition to assume the risk of injuries arising therefrom.
Id. Plaintiffs ask the Court to tamper with the delicate balance of incentives that is the province of the legislature in enacting statutes such as the CGIA. It should not do so. Significantly, the CGIA commission report even expressly lists Red Rocks as an example of the natural condition of unimproved property for which there is no waiver under the CGIA. Id. at xxi. (A distinction is made between (1) injuries caused by negligence in the construction, maintenance, failure to maintain, etc. of artificial, man-made objects (swing sets, buildings, etc.) and (2) injuries caused by the natural conditions of a park (the Flat Irons in Boulder or the Red Rocks west of Denver) (emphasis added). The Report clarifies: [i]n other words, ordinary negligence is sufficient to impose liability for injuries caused by the dangerous condition of artificial objects. For injuries caused by natural dangerous conditions, immunity is retained. Id. It is undisputed that the General Assembly intended to retain immunity for Red Rocks Park, Answer Brief at 38, and Creation Rock is a natural feature within that park. 24
Therefore, Colorado law and policy both demonstrate that Denver is immune from suit for injuries resulting from the dangerous condition of Creation Rock, which is the natural condition of unimproved property. The trial court erred in holding otherwise. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Denver respectfully requests that the Court reverse the denial of Denvers Motion to Dismiss and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES Denver reiterates its claim for attorney fees. C.R.S. 13-17-201 directs an award of attorney fees in all personal injury actions dismissed on motion of the defendant prior to trial under [C.R.C.P.] 12(b). If Denver prevails in this appeal and the matter is remanded for an order dismissing it, then the requirements of that statute will have been satisfied and Denver will be entitled to its fees, whether or not that dismissal was directed by the district court or on appeal. E.g., Dubray v. Intertribal Bison Coop., 192 P.3d 604 (Colo. App. 2008). DATED this 8th day of August 2014.
25
Respectfully submitted,
DENVER CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
By: s/ Jamesy C. Owen J amesy C. Owen Barry A. Schwartz Assistant City Attorneys Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant City and County of Denver
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 8th day of August 2014, the foregoing REPLY BRIEF was filed with the Court of Appeals and served on the following via ICCES:
Daniel P. Gerash, Esq. Gerash Steiner, P.C. dan@gerashsteiner.net Samuel Ventola, Esq. Staggs Ventola Morris LLP sventola@SVMlawfirm.com
Adrienne M. Tranel, Esq. Geoffrey D. Petis, Esq. Bachus & Schanker, L.L.C. gpetis@coloradolaw.net adrienne.tranel@coloradolaw.net litigation@ColoradoLaw.net
s/ Barry A. Schwartz Barry A. Schwartz Denver City Attorneys Office