This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The plaintiffs enrolled their five-year-old son and his sister in a summer day camp program operated by the Town of Taos. The plaintiffs were assured that adequate supervision would be provided, including the presence of an on-site supervisor. However, on the day of the incident, the promised supervision was not in place, and the child was injured after falling from a slide at the playground. The injury resulted in permanent nerve damage causing asymmetrical facial expression. The Town of Taos did not pay the child’s medical expenses despite initial assurances (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 5, 1994: Summary judgment was entered in favor of the Town of Taos, finding no waiver of sovereign immunity under the Tort Claims Act for negligent supervision and rejecting the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Plaintiffs): Argued that the absence of adequate supervision constituted a dangerous condition under the Tort Claims Act, waiving sovereign immunity. They also contended that the summer day camp application formed a contract, and the Town breached its duty to supervise the child (paras 5-7).
- Appellees (Defendants): Asserted that the Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for negligent supervision and that the application did not create a contractual obligation to ensure the safety of the children (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Does the Tort Claims Act waive sovereign immunity for injuries caused by the absence of adequate supervision at a municipal summer day camp?
- Does the summer day camp application form a contractual basis for liability for failure to supervise a minor child?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Town of Taos (para 16).
Reasons
Per Baca CJ (Ransom and Frost JJ. concurring):
- The Court held that the Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for claims of negligent supervision. The Act waives immunity only for unsafe or dangerous conditions of public property that pose risks to the general public. In this case, the playground itself was safe, and the injury arose from the day camp’s activities, not from a dangerous condition of the premises (paras 9-14).
- The Court distinguished this case from others where unsafe conditions were created by negligent conduct, such as in Seal v. Carlsbad Independent School District and Bober v. New Mexico State Fair. Here, the absence of supervision did not render the playground inherently unsafe (paras 6-14).
- Regarding the breach of contract claim, the Court found that the summer day camp application did not create a contractual obligation to ensure the safety of the children. The application merely guaranteed enrollment in the program and explicitly excluded liability for injuries (para 15).