Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/recreation-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:23:10+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fleury v. IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corp. on Tuesday, May 31, 2016.
Ski Safety Act of 1979—Statutes—Immunity Statutes—Plain Language—Plain, Ordinary, Common, or Literal Meaning—Public Amusement and Entertainment—Skiing and Snowboarding.
The Supreme Court held that an avalanche that occurs within the bounds of a ski resort qualifies as an “inherent danger and risk of skiing” under the Ski Safety Act of 1979, C.R.S. §§ 33-44-101 to -114. The definition of “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” in C.R.S. § 33-44-103(3.5) specifically includes “snow conditions as they exist or may change.” By its plain meaning, this phrase encompasses an in-bounds avalanche, which is, at its core, the movement or changing condition of snow. As such, C.R.S. § 33-44-112 precludes skiers from recovering for injuries resulting from in-bounds avalanches.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks & Resorts on Tuesday, October 21, 2014.
Corrine Kovnat and her husband vacationed in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming in June 2012. While there, Kovnat and her husband went on a horseback ride at the Canyon Corral, operated by Xanterra Parks & Resorts. While on the trail, Kovnat’s saddle slipped and she fell, striking her back on the ground and fracturing three vertebrae. Kovnat filed a diversity action against Xanterra, claiming Xanterra negligently operated Canyon Corrals because Kovnat’s horse was improperly saddled, and that Xanterra negligently failed to maintain the saddle in a safe condition or warn Kovnat of its unsafe condition. Xanterra filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that under the Wyoming Recreation Safety Act (WRSA), Xanterra owed no duty of care to protect Kovnat from the injuries alleged in her complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to Xanterra, and Kovnat appealed.
The Tenth Circuit first examined the WRSA, and found that in general, claims like Kovnat’s would not be allowed. The Tenth Circuit reviewed a similar case involving a Wyoming horseback rider injured in a saddle accident, where it ruled that the particular circumstances leading to the rider’s injury needed to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Turning to Kovnat’s claims, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court’s summary judgment regarding Kovnat’s claim that the saddle cinch was not tight enough, because there was a great deal of evidence that employees of Xanterra checked the cinch and it was too tight to slip the saddle back around after Kovnat’s fall, therefore any slipping of the cinch was an inherent risk of horseback riding. However, the Tenth Circuit evaluated Kovnat’s claim that her stirrups were uneven and determined that the uneven stirrups may not have been a result of the inherent risks of horseback riding. It remanded for further proceedings on this issue.
As to Kovnat’s negligent training and supervision claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment as to the cinch issue and reversed as to the stirrup issue. The case was remanded for further findings regarding whether the uneven stirrups were an inherent risk of horseback riding or some extenuating circumstance in which Xanterra may have been liable.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition v. Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation on August 30, 2012.
Curing an Open Meetings Law Violation—Summary Judgment.
In this action alleging violations of the Open Meetings Law (OML), plaintiffs, the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCo) and several nonprofit corporations and interested citizens, appealed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant, the Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (Board). Plaintiffs also appealed the court’s order denying them costs and attorney fees. The judgment and order were affirmed.
The Board is responsible for managing all state parks and outdoor recreation areas and for administering all state park and outdoor recreation programs. One such program is the off-highway vehicle (OHV) program. Under the OHV Act, annual registration and permit fees are placed in the OHV Recreation Fund and are required to be used for specified OHV purposes. For several years, the Board has made a portion of the OHV funds available through a grant process awarded by the OHV Subcommittee, though the Board retains final authority to allocate the grant funds.
In November 2009, the Board provided notice and held a public meeting regarding possible changes to the OHV grant program and subcommittee. Notice of subsequent public meetings was made and meetings were held in January, February, March, May, and July of 2010. During the course of these proceedings, three violations of the OML occurred: (1) on March 19, following the meeting, the Board discussed proposed changes to the OHV program and the OHV Subcommittee via e-mail; (2) on April 28, the Board held a meeting via telephone and e-mail to discuss the proposed changes; and (3) on June 7, an “OHV Program Modifications Roundtable” was convened by the state Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to discuss the proposed changes (all Board members were notified, two attended, and one actively participated in this meeting).
After the June 7 meeting, COHVCo sent the Board a letter alleging it had violated the OML and subsequently alleged violations of the OML regarding the March 19 and April 28 meetings. On July 16, at its regularly scheduled public meeting, the Board was briefed by the Attorney General regarding the legal implications of the alleged violations. The meeting was well attended by all interested parties and numerous “key” parties commented on record. Ultimately, the Board unanimously approved the changes.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued it was error to find that the Board “cured” the three OML violations. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court noted that the OML does not explicitly address whether a violation can be cured by holding a subsequent meeting that complies with the act. However, Colorado case law on the OML implies a public body may do so as long as it isn’t merely “rubber stamping” the earlier decision. The Court found that the July 16 meeting that effected the cure was not a rubber stamping of an earlier decision.
Plaintiffs also appealed the denial of their costs and attorney fees. The Court agreed with the district court that the Board “cured” the previous violation of the OML and therefore no costs or fees should have been awarded to plaintiffs. The judgment and order were affirmed.
On April 18, 2012, Sen. Brandon Shaffer and Rep. Jon Becker introduced SB 12-1340 – Concerning the Creation of the Colorado Conservation and Recreation Fund, and, In Connection Therewith, Creating the Colorado Conservation License Plate. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill creates the Colorado conservation and recreation fund and program and designates the program as an enterprise. The program is directed to build a conservation and recreation center at Bonny Lake and to use any remaining moneys for similar programs. The program is given bonding authority. The program may enter into business relationships with nonprofit entities and exercise the powers necessary for an enterprise.
The bill also creates the Colorado conservation license plate. A person becomes eligible to use the plate by donating $150 to the Colorado conservation and recreation fund. In addition to the normal motor vehicle fees, the plate requires two one-time fees of $25. One of the fees is credited to the highway users tax fund and the other to the licensing services cash fund. Assigned to the Finance Committee; the bill is set for committee review on Thursday, April 26 Upon Adjournment.
Since this summary, the bill was referred unamended from the Finance Committee to Appropriations.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in the Interest of M.C. on April 12, 2012.
M.C., a juvenile, appealed an adjudication of delinquency entered after a bench trial. The judgment was affirmed.
[Juvenile] abandoned the wildlife when he left the original kill site with the person who killed the wildlife. He went with the person who killed the wildlife back to a [sic] juvenile’s house. He then returned to the scene with the person who killed the wildlife. He helped move the carcass from the original spot to a different location. He and the others then abandoned the wildlife.
The juvenile moved to dismiss on the ground that the information failed to charge an offense. He argued that CRS § 33-6-117(1)(a)(I) and (II) are not independent and, therefore, the actor had to have “taken” the wildlife. Alternatively, he argued that subsection (II) was unconstitutionally vague because it does not identify what right or interest the actor must have in the wildlife. The court denied the motion.
The juvenile renewed his same arguments on appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected both of them. The Court first found that the plain language of CRS § 33-6-117(1)(a)(I) and (II) describe different ways of committing willful destruction of wildlife—one of which is abandoning wildlife regardless of whether the actor was also the taker.
The Court also found that CRS § 33-6-117(1)(a)(II) was not void for vagueness. A facial challenge requires a showing that the statute is “impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” The juvenile argued that a person can only abandon something in which a person has a right or interest. Here, the statute requires that the wildlife was “taken,” defined as “to acquire possession of wildlife.” Although finding ambiguity in the phrasing (the actor doing the taking is not identified), the Court held that it did not rise to the level of unconstitutional vagueness, because a person of common intelligence has sufficient notice under the statute that subsection (II) could apply to abandonment of wildlife taken by another person. “Abandon” is not defined in the statute, but the plain meaning of the word is clear enough that a person of common intelligence would understand that there was liability for abandoning the carcass of an animal taken by another. The judgment was affirmed.
On February 23, 2012, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and Sen. Gail Schwartz introduced HB 12-1317 – Concerning the Creation of the Parks and Wildlife Commission to Replace the Parks and Wildlife Board in the Department of Natural Resources, and, In Connection Therewith, Describing the Composition and Terms of the Commission. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
Senate Bill 11–208 combined the wildlife entities and parks and outdoor recreation entities and functions under the Department of Natural Resources. In so doing, the existing wildlife commission was merged with the existing board of parks and outdoor recreation to form the 16-member parks and wildlife board.
Effective July 1, 2012, the bill replaces the board of parks and outdoor recreation with the new parks and wildlife commission. The commission is comprised of 11 voting members and 2 nonvoting ex officio members (the executive director of the department and the commissioner of the department of agriculture). The voting members are appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate and must represent various geographical regions in the state and certain areas of interest or knowledge. Initial term lengths are staggered to reduce the impact to the board that results from member turnover. The commission is required to submit a five-year strategic plan to specified committees of reference. Components of the plan are specified. On March 23 the Appropriations Committee amended the bill and referred it to the house for consideration on 2nd Reading.
Governor Hickenlooper has signed 111 bills into law this legislative session, including fourteen bills that he signed on Friday, April 6, and one on April 9, 2012. A complete list of the bills he signed Friday can be found here. Five of these bills are highlighted below.
Sponsored by Rep. Cheri Gerou and Sen. Mary Hodge. This Joint Budget Committee bill changes the appropriations to the Department of Corrections for several services. This was one of three bills from the Joint Budget Committee to be signed by the governor on April 6.
Sponsored by Rep. Carole Murray and Sen. Mark Scheffel. The bill creates a definition for “published” for legal notices that are required to be published in legally recognized newspapers, and creates a contingency for counties that do not have a newspaper.
Sponsored by Rep. Jim Kerr and Sen. Ellen Roberts. This bill increases the amount that a candidate committee in a special district election must spend in order to trigger reporting requirements under the FCPA.
Sponsored by Rep. Cheri Gerou and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill requires municipalities that own land for utility purposes inside a county but outside the municipal boundaries to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the county or the Colorado State Forest Service in order to mitigate wildfires.
Sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Nicholson and Rep. Bob Gardner. The bill allows non-family members to receive guardianship assistance if they are guardians and foster parents of a child and are committed to the child’s permanency.
Additionally, on Monday, April 9, Governor Hickenlooper signed HB 12 -1295 “Colorado Rockies Vehicle License Plate,” sponsored by Rep. Kevin Priola and Sen. Lois Tochtrop. The governor signed the bill into law at Coors Field before the Colorado Rockies home opener. The bill creates a specialty license plate for the Colorado Rockies that benefits the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club Foundation.
For a complete list of legislation signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper on April 6, 2012, click here.
For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2012 legislative decisions, click here.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals revised its opinion in State of Wyoming v. Nat’l Parks Conservation Assoc. on Thursday, April 5, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit granted rehearing on the case, which was originally decided on February 29, 2012, and directed the clerk to issue an amended opinion. The substance of the opinion remains the same.
On February 20, 2012, Sen. Lois Tochtrop introduced SB 12-151 – Concerning the Authority of the Parks and Wildlife Board to Set Fees for the Use of Park and Outdoor Recreation Facilities and Programs. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill makes permanent the authority of the parks and wildlife board to set fees for the use of parks and outdoor recreation facilities and programs. The bill is assigned to the Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy Committee; it has not been calendared.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in The Ark Initiative v. United States Forest Service on Tuesday, November 8, 2011.
On Monday, November 7, 2011, President Obama signed H.R. 765, the “Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011,” into law. The new legislation clarifies the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of National Forest System land that is subject to ski area permits.
The new legislation amends the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, which allowed only Nordic and alpine skiing. Under the new legislation, other snow sports may be permitted on National Forest System lands, as well as year-round activities. Potential permitted activities may include zip lines, mountain bike terrain parks and trails, Frisbee golf courses and ropes courses.Currently, the Forest Service averages 27 million visits annually to ski areas. This has contributed $4 billion every winter and created approximately 80,000 full-, part-time and seasonal jobs in hard-hit rural communities. Under the new legislation, the Forest Service anticipates roughly 600,000 more summertime visits that may create and sustain up to 600 more full-, part-time and seasonal jobs. The addition of summer recreation is expected to infuse almost $40 million of direct funding into local mountain communities.
Protecting natural resources will remain a priority and year-long facilities will be subject to the same review and approval processes as those for ski facilities such as the construction of ski lifts and ski trails.
Not all recreation activities will be permitted. Those considered to be destructive to the natural environment will be excluded, including tennis courts, water slides and water parks, swimming pools, golf courses and amusement parks.

References: v. 
 § 33
 § 33
 v. 
 v. 
 § 33
 § 33
 § 33
 v. 
 v.