Opinion ID: 2823825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Man-Made vs. Natural Objects

Text: Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â Â First, the Report distinguishes between injuries caused by two types of dangerous conditionsâthose arising from man-made objects and those arising from natural objects: âFor injuries caused by natural dangerous conditions, immunity should be retained. . . . [T]his means that sovereign immunity does not apply with respect to man-made objects and does apply to natural objects.â Report, at 140â41 (emphasis added); see also Daniel, Â¶ 42, 327 P.3d at 903â04 (observing that the Report distinguishes man-made objects from natural conditions of property). This dichotomy between man-made and natural objects suggests that the natural condition provision governs any injuries arising from naturally occurring features of parks without consideration of their proximity to man-made objects. Accord Rendak v. California, 95 Cal. Rptr. 665, 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (â[I]mprovement of a portion of a park area does not remove the immunity from the unimproved areas.â). Â¶26Â Â Â Â Â Â The Report also specifically mentions ânatural conditions of a park (the Flat Irons in Boulder or the Red Rocks west of Denver).â Report, at xxi (emphasis added). ThisÂ indicates that the General Assembly intended the natural condition provision to retain vitality as applied to partially developed state parks.