Opinion ID: 2823825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Authorities Distinguishable

Text: Â¶66Â Â Â Â Â Â The plurality and concurrence erroneously rely on cases from other jurisdictions that invert Coloradoâs well-established CGIA interpretation guidelines. See plur. op. Â¶Â¶ 29â30; conc. op. Â¶ 4. Unlike Colorado, Californiaâs governmental immunity statute âwas designed to continue and extend the prior limited immunity, and therefore the Legislature did not intend a narrow constructionâ of its natural condition exception. See Meddock v. Cnty. of Yolo, 162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 796, 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, Redinger v. Clapperâs Tree Service Inc., 615 A.2d 743, 747 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992), involved a Pennsylvania recreational immunity statute that courts have interpreted to provide broad immunity to owners of âlargely unimprovedâ land. However, because the General Assembly enacted the CGIA in derogation of common law, we must narrowly construe grants of immunity in the interest of compensating victims of governmental negligence. Therefore, althoughÂ factually similar, the Meddock and Redinger decisions provide no authoritative guidance in interpreting Coloradoâs governmental immunity statute. 3 II. Â¶67Â Â Â Â Â Â Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the court of appeals and hold that the trial court erred when it dismissed Burnettâs claim.