Padilla v. School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 11 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. 99SC862.,99SC862.
• Citation: 25 P.3d 1176
• Parties: Shayne PADILLA, through her legal guardians and next friends, Mariano Padilla and Michelle PADILLA, Petitioner, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Colorado; The Denver School District Board of Education, Respondents.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

25 P.3d 1176

Shayne PADILLA, through her legal guardians and next friends, Mariano Padilla and Michelle PADILLA, Petitioner, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Colorado; The Denver School District Board of Education, Respondents.

No. 99SC862.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 11, 2001.

Law Office of Kathleen Mullen, P.C., Kathleen Mullen, Denver, CO, Attorney for Petitioner.

Semple, Miller & Mooney, P.C., Patrick B. Mooney, Denver, CO, Attorney for Respondents.

Wilcox & Ogden, P.C., Ralph Ogden, Denver, CO, Attorney for amicus curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association. Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) waives the defense of governmental immunity in an action for damages due to injuries resulting from "a dangerous condition of any public building." See § 24-10-106(1)(c), 7 C.R.S. (2000). Petitioner Shayne Padilla (Padilla) through her parents brought a negligence action against School District No. 1 of the City and County of Denver and the Denver School District Board of Education (School District), asserting that she sustained injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of a public building. We granted certiorari review of the court of appeals' decision in Padilla v. School District No. 1, 1 P.3d 256 (Colo.App.1999), to determine whether Padilla may proceed with her negligence action in light of the CGIA.¹ We hold that Padilla failed to show jurisdictional facts sufficient for application of the immunity waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the trial court's order dismissing the action.

I.

Padilla, a ten-year-old developmentally disabled child, suffered from serious medical conditions for which she had frequently been subject to hospitalization, blood draws, and invasive medical procedures. Due to such procedures, she associated physical restraint with pain and became frightened and agitated when restrained, pulled, or grabbed.

Her mother informed personnel of the Denver Public Schools (DPS) that Padilla should not be pulled or restrained. She provided a stroller for transporting Padilla to avoid pulling or dragging her.

On February 12, 1997, Padilla refused to eat her lunch, and became agitated when DPS employees tried to get her to eat. DPS employees placed Padilla in her stroller and propped the stroller out of their line of sight against an open door of a closet adjoining the classroom. Padilla became agitated, the stroller fell backward, and Padilla struck her head against the floor, fracturing her skull.

Padilla brought suit for negligence against the School District. The School District moved to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the CGIA. In response to the motion to dismiss, Padilla set forth her alleged jurisdictional facts through proposed findings of fact, asking in the alternative that the court hold an evidentiary hearing in the event that the court did not accept her proposed findings of fact for jurisdictional purposes.

Padilla's proposed findings recited, in part, that the "Centennial Elementary School staff used the stroller and the storage closet as a place of restraint and `time out' without Mrs. Padilla's knowledge or consent" and the "Centennial staff isolated [the child] inside the storage closet and used the door and wall next to the open doorway as a means of securing the stroller from toppling over." The child became "more agitated, frustrated, and upset" and "[t]he stroller toppled backward, causing [the child] to hit her head on the floor of the open doorway, resulting in a skull fracture." Padilla further alleged that immunity was waived because the "placement of [the child's] stroller combined with the use of the storage room without a window or line of sight created a dangerous condition in a public building."

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing. In its order of dismissal, the trial court recited the jurisdictional facts as follows:

For the purpose of this order, the Court accepts plaintiff's version of facts.

Plaintiff is a ten-year-old disabled child with various medical conditions. Defendants are the school district and board of education where plaintiff attends school.

Because of plaintiff's association with painful medical procedures, plaintiff becomes frightened and agitated when restrained. To prevent school personnel from forcibly pulling or dragging plaintiff, Mrs. Padilla supplied a stroller for transporting plaintiff. Mrs. Padilla did not authorize the use of the stroller for physical restraint. On February 12, 1997, because plaintiff refused to eat her lunch defendants' employees put plaintiff in her stroller that was placed in a storage closet against an open door. The door was used as a backstop for the stroller. However, plaintiff became agitated and the stroller toppled backward into the open doorway causing plaintiff to hit her head on the floor.

In granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court focused on Padilla's failure to prove or allege facts coming within the immunity waiver, because she did not link the use of the facility with a construction or maintenance activity:

Thus, in order to prove a waiver of sovereign immunity under C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(c), plaintiff must prove that the positioning of the stroller was (1) a physical condition of a facility or use thereof; (2) an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of the public; (3) known to exist or which should have been known to exist; and (4) proximately caused by the negligent act or omission in constructing or maintaining such facility. Plaintiff has failed to prove or even allege any facts to support a finding that positioning the stroller was caused by constructing or maintaining this facility.

(Emphasis added.)

Summing up its determination, the trial court said, "Plaintiff's case is wholly premised on the positioning of the stroller. Nothing in plaintiff's case supports a finding that plaintiff's injuries were caused by construction or maintenance of the school."

The court of appeals affirmed, holding that negligent use of the closet as a seclusion room did not constitute negligent "maintenance" of the facility for the purposes of the "dangerous condition" exception. Padilla, 1 P.3d at 259. The court's majority characterized Padilla's claims as alleging not "negligent maintenance" but "improper actions on the part of the school staff in placing the child out of their line of sight." Id. at 260. The majority also determined that the trial court had not erred in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the School District's motion to dismiss. Id. at 259.

We agree and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

II.

We hold that Padilla did not allege sufficient jurisdictional facts associating her injuries with actions or omissions of the School District in constructing or maintaining the facility.

A.

The CGIA Jurisdictional Inquiry

The General Assembly enacted the CGIA in 1971 in response to a trilogy of cases abrogating Colorado's common law of governmental immunity. See ch. 323, sec. 1, §§ 130-11-1 to -17, 1971 Colo. Sess. Laws 1204, 1204-11; Evans v. Board of County Comm'rs, 174 Colo. 97, 105, 482 P.2d 968, 972 (1971) (abrogating common law sovereign immunity and recognizing that the legislature could reestablish governmental immunity by statute). The CGIA establishes immunity from suit for public entities and their employees in tort cases, but then waives immunity under certain circumstances and also provides exceptions to certain waivers. Springer v. City & County of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 798 (Colo.2000); § 24-10-106.

The CGIA derogates Colorado's common law. Consequently, we strictly construe the statute's immunity provisions. See Springer, 13 P.3d at 798; Bertrand v. Board of County Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 223, 227 (Colo. 1994). As a logical corollary, we broadly construe the provisions withholding immunity in the interest of compensating victims of governmental negligence. Springer, 13 P.3d at 798; Corsentino v. Cordova, 4 P.3d 1082, 1086 (Colo.2000); Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636, 643 (Colo.1998).

A C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on grounds of immunity under the CGIA raises a jurisdictional issue; the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating jurisdiction. See Trinity Broad. of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916, 924-25 (Colo.1993). When the alleged jurisdictional facts are in dispute, the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the jurisdictional issue. See Fogg v. Macaluso, 892 P.2d 271, 276 (Colo.1995). Where there is no evidentiary dispute, governmental immunity or waiver of immunity is a matter of law, and the trial court may rule on the jurisdictional issue without a hearing. See Corsentino, 4 P.3d at 1087; Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Colo.1997).

Here, the trial court accepted all of Padilla's assertions of fact as true; consequently, it did not abuse its discretion in proceeding to rule on the School District's motion to dismiss without convening an evidentiary hearing.

B.

Waiver for Dangerous Condition of Any Public Building

1. Construction or Maintenance Nexus

Section 24-10-106(1)(c) provides that "[s]overeign immunity is waived by a public entity in an action for injuries resulting from. . . [a] dangerous condition of any public building." The CGIA further defines "dangerous condition" as

a physical condition of a facility or the use thereof which constitutes an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of the public, which is known to exist or which in the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to exist and which condition is proximately caused by the negligent act or omission of the public entity in constructing or maintaining the facility. Maintenance does not include any duty to upgrade, modernize, modify, or improve

...