Opinion ID: 2823825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maintenance of Unimproved Property

Text: Â¶32Â Â Â Â Â Â Third, the Report expresses a clear intent to exempt public entities from liability for failing to maintain natural conditions: If a facility is constructed or built, it must be maintained at the risk of being liable for a failure to do so. If there is property which was notÂ constructed, but is natural and unimproved, a public entity is not requiredÂ to maintain it and cannot be held liable for failure to maintain it. In this case, sovereign immunity is applicable. Report, at 140â41 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we conclude that section 24-10-106(1)(e) does not create a duty to maintain natural features, nor does a duty arise merely because of the featuresâ proximity or contiguity to improved property. 5 Â¶33Â Â Â Â Â Â Furthermore, even where the State chooses to maintain unimproved property to protect the public health and safety, it does not assume a duty to maintain the property where none otherwise existed. See Â§ 24-10-106.5(1) (stating that a public entity does not âassume[] a duty of care where none otherwise existed by the performance of a serviceâ). Such a policy âencourage[s] the provision of services to protect the public health and safetyâ and âallow[s] public entities to allocate their limited fiscal resources.â Id.Â