AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on the grounds of Apache Elementary School while attending her son's Little League game. The Plaintiffs alleged that the school was negligent in allowing construction workers to leave the grounds in a hazardous condition. They sought damages under the Tort Claims Act, arguing that the school waived its sovereign immunity for the operation and maintenance of public buildings and grounds (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, Albuquerque Public Schools, holding that the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) provided immunity to the Defendant (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the RUS does not apply to public lands, does not cover organized team sports like Little League baseball, and that the school charged a fee for the use of its land, which would negate immunity under the RUS (paras 2, 7, 25).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the RUS applies to public lands and protects landowners, including public entities, from liability when they allow free public access for recreational purposes. They argued that Little League baseball falls under the statute's scope (paras 2, 7, 18).

Legal Issues

• Does the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) provide immunity to public entities for injuries occurring on public lands?
• Does the RUS apply to organized team sports such as Little League baseball?
• Does the fee paid to Zia Little League constitute a "charge" under the RUS, negating immunity?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 26).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Bustamante and Robinson JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the RUS does not apply to organized team sports like Little League baseball. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the Court found that the activities listed in the RUS—hunting, fishing, camping, etc.—are individual, outdoor activities pursued in natural settings, distinct from organized team sports (paras 18-19, 24).
• The Court noted that the RUS was designed to encourage private landowners to open their lands for public recreational use, not to shield public entities from liability for injuries on land already dedicated to public use (paras 5, 13-14).
• The Court declined to decide whether the RUS applies to public lands generally, as the issue was not necessary to resolve the case. However, it highlighted ambiguities in the statutory language and urged the legislature to clarify the statute (paras 3, 12, 17).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the RUS should be broadly interpreted to include all recreational activities, emphasizing that the legislature deliberately narrowed the list of activities covered by the statute (paras 20-21).
• The Court did not address whether the fee paid to Zia Little League constituted a "charge" under the RUS, as it was unnecessary given the finding that the statute does not apply to organized team sports (para 25).