Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): asserting sovereign immunity under a separate provision of section 24-10-106(1)(e), by which a public entity retains immunity for "an injury caused by the natural condition of any unimproved property" ("the natural condition provision"). The parties subsequently stipulated that the improved campsite was a "public facility" but the trees adjacent to it originated on unimproved property. T8 The trial court determined that the "sole issue" was whether the trees adjacent to Burnett's campsite constituted a "public facility." In granting the State's motion to dismiss, the trial court conducted a two-part analysis to assess whether a pre-existing natural object, such as the tree, could be part of a "public facility." See Rosales v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 89 P.3d 507, 510 (Colo.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). The trial court held that the trees bordering 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver (B) recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public (C) holding that a tree is part of a public facility if a public entity incorporates it into a facility in such a manner that it 1 becomes an integral part of the facility and 2 is essential for the intended use of the facility (D) holding that the selection of the jury constitutes part of a public trial (E) holding sba is an integral part of federal government and is not a separate legal entity
Output (English): holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver