This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A minor child was injured while diving off a styrofoam raft in Ute Lake State Park. Believing he was moving into deeper water, he struck his head on an unmarked hazard approximately two feet below the surface, resulting in quadriplegia. The park, leased by the New Mexico Park and Recreation Division from the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, was used for recreational purposes, including swimming, diving, and boating. There were no warning signs marking shallow water hazards.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding no waiver of sovereign immunity under Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that sovereign immunity was waived under Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act because the park was a public park, and the statute imposes a duty of care on public employees to maintain such premises. Alternatively, they contended that governmental liability existed for proprietary functions, such as park maintenance, even before the Tort Claims Act.
- Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that the park was classified as "works" under Section 41-4-6, which exempts facilities used for the diversion or storage of water from the waiver of immunity. They argued that the original purpose of the lake for water storage and diversion was controlling, and thus immunity was not waived.
Legal Issues
- Was sovereign immunity waived under Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act for the operation or maintenance of the public park where the injury occurred?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Minzner C.J. and Apodaca J. concurring):
The Court held that sovereign immunity was waived under Section 41-4-6 of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The statute waives immunity for negligence in the operation or maintenance of public parks but exempts "works used for diversion or storage of water." The Court interpreted the statute to focus on the present use of the facilities, not their original purpose. Evidence showed that the park was used solely for recreational purposes at the time of the accident, not for water diversion or storage. The park met the statutory definition of a public park, and the legislature intended to ensure public safety by imposing a duty of care on public employees maintaining such premises. The Court found a prima facie case of negligence and genuine issues of material fact, making summary judgment inappropriate.