Opinion ID: 2823825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Balancing Safety and Access to Public Land

Text: Â¶34Â Â Â Â Â Â Fourth, the Report highlights the policy reasons underlying the CGIA and the natural condition provision. The primary concern in implementing the CGIA was to provide the public with a sufficient avenue to tort recovery without exhausting governmental resourcesânamely, the public fiscâthrough excessive exposure to tort liability. See Report, at xxi; see also Young v. Brighton Sch. Dist. 27J, 2014 CO 32, Â¶ 32, 325 P.3d 571, 581 (â[T]he legislature has conducted a careful balancing act in crafting the CGIA; specifically, it sought to balance the competing interests of protecting the public fisc on the one hand and allowing a sufficient avenue for tort recovery on the other.â). The CGIA avoids exposing governmental entities to liability that would âdisruptâ or âmake prohibitively expensiveâ the essential public services and functions that the entities provide. Â§ 24-10-102. Â¶35Â Â Â Â Â Â Indeed, the Report expressly warns against subjecting public entities to liability where injuries arise from natural conditions: â[I]f immunity were waived with respect to injuries caused by the natural condition of any unimproved property[,] the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many entities to close such areas to public use.â Report, at xxi. It is clear from this language that the General Assembly intended to encourage governmental entities to open primitive, government-owned property to the public by limiting the entitiesâ exposure to liability from individuals who choose to use the property.Â Â¶36Â Â Â Â Â Â Based on these portions of the CGIAâs legislative history, we hold that the General Assembly intended a ânatural condition of . . . unimproved propertyâ to include native trees originating on unimproved property.