No sign so the 13-year-old girl did not know the park was only for kids under age 12. (Like kids read signs anyway.)

A broken slide in a park injures the plaintiff. The defendant city says they are not liable because the 13-year-old should have seen the hole, and the park was only for kids under age 12 anyway.

How can a sign warn a kid when the law created the attractive nuisance claim for kids? A kid sees a sign and is going to stop and read the signs? Signs are for adults.

Bowman v. The Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

State: Illinois, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District Fifth Division

Plaintiff: Artenia Bowman, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Cheneka Ross

Defendant: The Chicago Park District

Plaintiff Claims: (1) that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that CPD (Chicago Park District) had designated the park and the slide for only children under 12 years old; (2) that the danger created by the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious; and (3) that CPD’s failure to repair the slide, after being informed almost a year earlier of the danger, constituted willful and wanton conduct

Defendant Defenses: (1) that it did not owe any duty to plaintiff because she was not an intended user of the slide (2) that the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was an open and obvious risk

Holding: for Plaintiff, sent back for trial

Year: 2014

The case is written a little differently. The decision only references all the affidavits and depositions of the witnesses and draws its facts and conclusions that way.

The case is pretty simple. A slide in a Chicago city park had a hole in the bottom. The 13-year-old plaintiff slid down the slide catching her foot in the hole and fractured her ankle. Her mother sued on her behalf.

The trial court dismissed the case on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court found the park was only for 12 year olds and younger kids and since the plaintiff was 13, she could not sue.  The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The decision at the appellate level found the following facts:

There was no sign posted at the park indicating the park was only for a specific set of patrons. The park district (Chicago Park District or CPD) had passed an ordinance that restricted the park to only kids 12 and younger. The park district had been notified numerous times for over 18 months by several different people that the slide was in need of repair. The CPD knew that the slide was in need of repair. The plaintiff had gone to the park with other kids who were younger, and this was her first time at the park.

Although the CPD had passed an ordinance on the use of the park, the CPD had never promulgated the ordinance (so that anyone knew about the rule). The CPD owes a duty of care to intended and permitted users of park property. The ordinance limiting the use of the park has the same force as a municipal ordinance. Accordingly, the CPD argued that they were immune from liability because the park was designed for kids younger than the plaintiff.

The issue revolved around the failure of the park to let the public know about the rules.

It is a long-established principle that members of the public must have a reasonable opportunity to be informed of an ordinance so that they may conform their conduct accordingly and avoid liability under the ordinance.

Nor was there anything in any CPD code stating that the park in question was designated for children under age 12. There were no signs at the playground stating the park was only for children under the age of 12. Which the court interpreted as: “Playgrounds are designed for children. What would prompt a 13-year-old child to observe a slide and think, “am I really the intended user of this slide?

Because no one knew and because the park had no sign, there was no way the plaintiff could know that she was not supposed to use the slide. The court ruled.

We must reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment which was granted solely on the basis that a 13-year-old was not an intended user of the slide.

First, the defendant does not cite a case where a child was charged with the responsibility of knowing municipal ordinances, without a sign or other notice, nor can we find such a case.

Second, defendant failed to inform park users of any age, by any means, that this park and the slide were intended for children younger than age 12.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court.

So Now What?

If you have the ability to make rules, then follow the rules when you make rules, to make sure your rules are correctly in place. Under the law post your rules at the places, the rules were created to apply to so everyone knows the rules.

Realistically, if you want kids not to get hurt, rules and signs are not going to do it. The rules are there to protect the park, not the kids. How many kids read signs?

Are we going to have a new way of warning children? “Mom I’m going to out to play.” “OK dear, but be back before dark and make sure you read all the signs that may apply to you.”

clip_image002

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2014 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law       Rec-law@recreation-law.com              James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, CPD, Chicago Park District, Park, Slide, Ordinance, Signs, Warning Signs,


Bowman v. The Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

Bowman v. The Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

Artenia Bowman, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Cheneka Ross, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Chicago Park District, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-13-2122

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION

2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

September 5, 2014, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Corrected.

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 11 L 7865. The Honorable Kathy M. Flanagan, Judge Presiding.

Bowman v. Chi. Park Dist., 2014 IL App (1st) 132122-U, 2014 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1420 (2014)

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.

COUNSEL: For Appellant: Paul A. Greenberg, Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, of Chicago, IL.

For Appellee: George P. Smyrniotis, Risk Management Senior Counsel, Robert L. Raymond, Marie Christelle Levesque (Legal Extern), Chicago Park District, of Chicago, IL.

JUDGES: JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Palmer and Justice Taylor concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION BY: GORDON

OPINION

[*P1] Plaintiff Artenia Bowman, individually and as mother and next friend of Cheneka Ross, a minor, filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County against the Chicago Park District (CPD) alleging willful and wanton conduct for failing, for almost a year, to repair a damaged slide. Plaintiff’s daughter, Cheneka Ross, age 13, was going down a slide on April 21, 2011, when her foot became caught in a hole in the plastic at the bottom of the slide, resulting in a fractured ankle. Defendant CPD owns the property and maintains the playground equipment, including the slide.

[*P2] Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2010)) claiming: (1) that it did not owe any duty to Cheneka because she was not an intended user of the slide since she was 13 years old and the slide was intended for children aged under 12; and (2) that the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was an open and obvious risk that the 13-year-old [**2] should have avoided. Plaintiff, in her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, claims.

[*P3] The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that 13-year-old Cheneka had violated a CPD ordinance by using a slide that had been designed for children under 12 years old, although there were no signs to indicate an age limit. Since the trial court found that Cheneka was not an intended user of the slide, it did not discuss whether the damage was open and obvious or whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P4] On this direct appeal, plaintiff argues: (1) that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary judgment on the basis that 13-year-old Cheneka was not an intended user of defendant’s slide; (2) that the danger created by the hole at the [**3] bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious; and (3) that CPD’s failure to repair the slide, after being informed of its condition almost a year earlier, constituted willful and wanton conduct.

[*P5] For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that Cheneka was not the intended user of the slide and reverse. We remand for the trial court to decide whether the slide’s condition was open and obvious and whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide after being notified was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P6] BACKGROUND

[*P7] I. The Complaint

[*P8] The complaint at issue on this appeal is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which was filed on March 1, 2012. The suit seeks damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s daughter, Cheneka, when she damaged her ankle on a park slide on April 21, 2011. The complaint alleges that Cheneka was using the slide when her foot came in contact with a hole that caused a fracture in her ankle; and that defendant CPD was aware that the slide was dangerous and had failed to repair it. Count I alleges defendant acted willfully and wantonly toward users of the slide by failing to repair the slide even though it had received [**4] numerous complaints from the community. Count II sought recovery on behalf of her daughter’s medical expenses under the Rights of Married Persons Act, commonly known as the Family Expense Act. 750 ILCS 65/15 (West 2010).

[*P9] II. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[*P10] On January 13, 2013, defendant, as noted, filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming: (1) that it did not owe any duty to Cheneka because she was not an intended user of the slide; and (2) that the slide was an open and obvious risk that the 13-year-old should have avoided.

[*P11] CPD argued that it had an ordinance stating that children age 12 and older should not use playground equipment designed for children under the age of 12. CPD claims that, since Cheneka was 13 years old, she violated the ordinance, and CPD was immune from liability.

[*P12] CPD also claimed that the danger at the bottom of the curved slide was open and obvious, and that the 13-year-old should not have used the slide because a reasonable child would have avoided it. CPD also claimed that, since the 13-year-old was unsupervised, she should be old enough to appreciate obvious risks; however, issues of supervision were not raised on appeal.

[*P13] Plaintiff responded to the motion contending [**5] that defendant had failed to establish that the 13-year-old was not the intended user of the slide. She claimed that the park was open to the public and no sign was present in the park prohibiting children age 12 and older from using the slide. Plaintiff also contended that the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious because she was unable to see the hole prior to being injured. The slide was curved, which made it difficult for children to observe what was in front of them.

[*P14] III. Exhibits

[*P15] A. Cheneka Ross’s Deposition

[*P16] Cheneka testified in a discovery deposition that, on April 21, 2011, she went with friends to a park located at 1420 North Artesian Avenue1 to play a game of tag. Most of her friends were several years younger than her, including her brother. It was around 7 p.m. and starting to become dark. She had played at this park before and had been there several times. While playing tag, Cheneka ran to the slide to avoid being tagged by one of her friends. She went up the slide and when she descended, her foot became caught in a hole in the plastic, at the bottom of the slide, causing a fractured ankle requiring surgery.

1 The parties agree that the park is known [**6] as Park 399.

[*P17] Cheneka testified that she did not observe the hole at the bottom of the slide before her foot became caught. She did not observe the crack from the top of the slide and identified a photograph of the slide. The photograph, which was introduced at the deposition, showed that the slide was curved, and the top of the slide did not line up with the bottom.

[*P18] B. Artenia Bowman’s Affidavit and Deposition

[*P19] Artenia Bowman is Cheneka’s mother. In an affidavit attached to plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment, Cheneka’s mother alleges that there were no signs posted which designated the age group for the playground. Specifically, there were no signs stating that the play equipment was intended for those 2 to 12 years old2 and that those 13 years or older were prohibited.

2 We note that this age range conflicts with the Chicago Park District Code (CPD Code), which states certain parks are designated for children under age 12. Chicago Park District Code ch. 7, § B(3)(e) (amended July 28, 1992).

[*P20] Cheneka’s mother testified that, after the incident, the park had been renovated, and after the renovation, new signs were posted stating that the park was intended for children [**7] under the age of 12.

[*P21] C. Juan Moreno’s Deposition

[*P22] Juan Moreno lives about 300 feet away from the park. Moreno testified in a discovery deposition that he goes to the park on a daily basis for a walk and some fresh air. He observed the damage to the slide for about a year and a half. He testified that the slide was “cracked really bad,” and it had a lot of water buildup at its bottom. Moreno had called 311 and was directed to CPD several times to report the broken slide’s condition before Cheneka was injured. Moreno testified that he spoke to an unnamed CPD supervisor in person, about a year prior to the incident, to complain about the slide. He also has contacted Alderman Roberto Maldonado’s office three times regarding the condition of the slide.

[*P23] Moreno testified that he still observed children playing on the broken slide despite its condition. He also mentioned that he observed older children at the park.

[*P24] D. Kathleen Oskandy’s Deposition

[*P25] Kathleen Oskandy, Alderman Maldonado’s chief of staff, spoke to Cheneka’s mother after the incident. Oskandy testified in a discovery deposition that she informed Cheneka’s mother that Moreno had already filed complaints with the alderman’s office [**8] about the slide before the incident. Oskandy reported the condition of the slide to CPD in July 2010 after being informed by Moreno.

[*P26] Oskandy provided a computer printout of the complaints regarding the park maintained by her office. It was a timeline of Moreno’s initial complaint, along with subsequent comments. The log showed a complaint made on July 29, 2010, about the slide’s condition and additional comments when CPD was contacted. On August 24, 2010, the log stated: “slide boarded up and waiting for repair.” One week prior to the incident in April 2011, the log stated, “slide west of park still broken.” On April 25, 2011, the log mentioned that Cheneka was injured and “[CPD] replaced slide for repair.”

[*P27] E. Gladys Ruiz’s Deposition

[*P28] Gladys Ruiz works in Alderman Maldonado’s office answering calls and inputting data. Ruiz explained in a discovery deposition the procedure of how staff entered complaints in the office computer. On July 29, 2010,3 Moreno had called the office, and Ruiz logged his complaint about the slide. She made a note about the damaged slide in the computer log. Ruiz interpreted the log provided by Oskandy and explained that Oskandy was the one that closed out the [**9] file on August 27 when Oskandy contacted CPD.

3 The computer printout of the log shows a date of July 29, but Ruiz’s deposition testimony states July 19.

[*P29] F. Robert Rejman’s Affidavit and Deposition

[*P30] Robert Rejman is the director of development and planning for CPD. His duties include developing policies for park district facilities and establishing and improving playgrounds. In an affidavit attached to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Rejman stated that “he was personally familiar with Park 399” and he “reviewed the plaintiff’s photographs of the playground equipment and can say that this equipment is commonly in the design of playgrounds that are intended for users between the ages of two to twelve.” He additionally stated that a sign was posted at the park indicating that playground equipment is designed for children aged 2 to 124; however, his affidavit did not state when the sign was posted or whether the sign was posted at the time of 13-year-old Cheneka’s injury.

4 We note that this age range conflicts with the CPD Code, which states certain parks are designated for children under age 12. Chicago Park District Code ch. 7, § B(3)(e) (amended July 28, 1992).

[*P31] Rejman later testified [**10] in a discovery deposition that he visited the park only once at some unknown point before the incident. He stated that he was unaware if there were any signs posted outside the park designating the age range when he was there. We observe that this testimony conflicts with the affidavit, where he stated that a sign was posted in the park. Rejman also stated that he was unaware if there had been any recent improvements to the park. Rejman characterized the park as a “play lot,” a park with most equipment for children age 12 and under. He testified there are different areas for younger children because “it’s safer for kids within a certain age groups to have space to play *** within that age group. *** It’s important to [parents] to provide that safe zone of play for younger children.”

[*P32] G. John Shostack’s Deposition

[*P33] John Shostack is a maintenance foreman for CPD’s natural resources landscape maintenance department. He testified in a discovery deposition that he was assigned to the park in 2010, but was not assigned there at the time of the incident in 2011. Shostack claimed to have stopped by the park at least once a week when he was assigned to the park. He admitted that he was aware [**11] of the slide’s damaged condition in 2010. Shostack placed a work order in 2010 to have the slide repaired; however, it was not his job to follow up, as that task was assigned to a different department. Shostack testified that he remembered seeing a wooden board placed at the top of the slide to prevent use, and yellow caution tape surrounded the slide. Shostack could not recall how long the board or caution tape was present on the slide. He would put up caution tape as a courtesy on one day, and it would be absent the next time he was there. He also testified that he could not recall if any actual repairs were done on the slide while he was assigned to the park.

[*P34] IV. Trial Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment

[*P35] On June 10, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant CPD, finding that Cheneka had violated a CPD ordinance and was not an intended user:

“Here, there is a dispute as to whether the subject playground displayed a sign restricting the use of the playground to persons under the age of twelve. However, the Chicago Park District enacted an ordinance restricting the use of playgrounds to children under the age of twelve. The ordinance itself is the manifestation [**12] of the Park District’s intent vis-a-vis the use of the playground. As such, whether or not there was a sign on the subject playground, the minor Plaintiff here was not an intended user of it.”

[*P36] The trial court did not discuss whether the damage to the slide was open and obvious, or whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide was willful and wanton conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the ground that the 13-year-old was not an intended user because of her age.

[*P37] On July 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.

[*P38] ANALYSIS

[*P39] Plaintiff Artenia Bowman appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Chicago Park District.

[*P40] On this appeal, plaintiff argues: (1) that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary judgment on the basis that 13-year-old Cheneka was not an intended user of defendant’s slide; (2) that the danger created by the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious; and (3) that CPD’s failure to repair the slide, after being informed of its condition almost a year earlier, constituted willful and wanton conduct.

[*P41] With respect to the first issue, defendant [**13] claims that Cheneka was not the intended user of the slide, and therefore, it is not liable. For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this ground and reverse. We remand for the trial court to decide whether the slide’s condition was open and obvious, and whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide after being notified was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P42] I. Standard of Review

[*P43] [HN1] A trial court is permitted to grant summary judgment only “if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2010). The trial court must view these documents and exhibits in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307, 315, 821 N.E.2d 269, 290 Ill. Dec. 218 (2004). We review a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novoOutboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102, 607 N.E.2d 1204, 180 Ill. Dec. 691 (1992). De novo consideration means we perform the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564, 578, 948 N.E.2d 132, 350 Ill. Dec. 63 (2011).

[*P44] [HN2] “Summary judgment is a drastic measure and should only be granted if the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt.” Outboard Marine Corp., 154 Ill. 2d at 102. However, “[m]ere speculation, conjecture, or guess is insufficient [**14] to withstand summary judgment.” Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc., 309 Ill. App. 3d 313, 328, 722 N.E.2d 227, 242 Ill. Dec. 738 (1999). A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of proof. Nedzvekas v. Fung, 374 Ill. App. 3d 618, 624, 872 N.E.2d 431, 313 Ill. Dec. 448 (2007). The defendant may meet his burden of proof either by affirmatively showing that some element of the case must be resolved in his favor or by establishing “‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.'” Nedzvekas, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 624 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). In other words, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff’s complaint.

[*P45] “‘The purpose of summary judgment is not to try an issue of fact but *** to determine whether a triable issue of fact exists.'” Schrager v. North Community Bank, 328 Ill. App. 3d 696, 708, 767 N.E.2d 376, 262 Ill. Dec. 916 (2002) (quoting Luu v. Kim, 323 Ill. App. 3d 946, 952, 752 N.E.2d 547, 256 Ill. Dec. 667 (2001)). “‘To withstand a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party need not prove his case at this preliminary stage but must present some factual basis that would support his claim.'” Schrager, 328 Ill. App. 3d at 708 (quoting Luu, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 952). We may affirm on any basis appearing in the record, whether or not the trial court relied on that basis or its reasoning was correct. Ray Dancer, Inc. v. DMC Corp., 230 Ill. App. 3d 40, 50, 594 N.E.2d 1344, 171 Ill. Dec. 824 (1992).

[*P46] II. Intended User of Slide

[*P47] CPD argues that, since Cheneka was not the intended user of the slide, it cannot be liable for her injuries. [HN3] As a local public entity, CPD is entitled to the protection of the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. (West 2010)). [**15]

[*P48] In order for a municipality to have immunity under the Act, a duty must be owed under section 3-102 (745 ILCS 10/3-102 (West 2010)) for any of the subsequent immunity sections to apply. Swett v. Village of Algonquin, 169 Ill. App. 3d 78, 95, 523 N.E.2d 594, 119 Ill. Dec. 838 (1988). Section 3-102(a) states:

[HN4] “Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used, and shall not be liable for injury unless it is proven that it has actual or constructive notice of the existence of such a condition that is not reasonably safe in reasonably adequate time prior to an injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against such condition.” (Emphasis added.) 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2010).

[*P49] Thus, [HN5] according to the Act, a municipality owes a duty of care only to those who are both intended and permitted users of municipal property. 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2010). Because “the Act ‘is in derogation of the common law,'” we must construe it strictly against the municipal defendant. Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort, 166 Ill. 2d 155, 158, 651 N.E.2d 1115, 209 Ill. Dec. 667 (1995) (quoting Curatola v. Village of Niles, 154 Ill. 2d 201, 208, 608 N.E.2d 882, 181 Ill. Dec. 631 (1993)). “[A]n intended user of property is, by definition, also a permitted user; [**16] a permitted user of property, however, is not necessarily an intended user.” Boub v. Township of Wayne, 183 Ill. 2d 520, 524, 702 N.E.2d 535, 234 Ill. Dec. 195 (1998).

[*P50] “[T]he duty of a municipality depends on whether the use of the property was a permitted and intended use. [Citation.] Whether a particular use of property was permitted and intended is determined by looking to the nature of the property itself. [Citation.]” (Emphasis omitted.) Vaughn, 166 Ill. 2d at 162-63. “Intent must be inferred from the circumstances.” Sisk v. Williamson County, 167 Ill. 2d 343, 351, 657 N.E.2d 903, 212 Ill. Dec. 558 (1995).

[*P51] Defendant contends that, as a 13-year-old, Cheneka was not the intended or permitted user of the slide at the park. CPD claims, first, that this park was intended only for children 12 and younger. Second, chapter 7, section B(3)(e), of the CPD Code states:

“Playgrounds Designated for Persons under Twelve Years of Age.

[HN6] No person the age of twelve years or older shall use playground equipment designed for persons under the age of twelve years.” Chicago Park District Code ch. 7, § B(3)(e) (amended July 28, 1992).

[HN7] The CPD Code has the same force as a municipal ordinance. Chicago Park District v. Canfield, 382 Ill. 218, 223-24, 47 N.E.2d 61 (1943). Defendant claims it is immune from liability, because the 13-year-old violated the CPD Code by allegedly using equipment “designed” for younger children.

[*P52] [HN8] To determine whether plaintiff was an intended user of property, we [**17] look to the property itself to determine its intended use. Wojdyla v. City of Park Ridge, 148 Ill. 2d 417, 426, 592 N.E.2d 1098, 170 Ill. Dec. 418, (1992).

[*P53] Defendant cites Montano v. City of Chicago, 308 Ill. App. 3d 618, 624, 720 N.E.2d 628, 242 Ill. Dec. 7 (1999), where this court ruled that the defendant city was not liable when an adult pedestrian, who was injured on the pavement in an alleyway, had been violating an ordinance governing the use of alleys. The court found that there is no duty owed to pedestrians on thoroughfares not intended for pedestrian traffic. Montano, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 625.

[*P54] In Prokes v. City of Chicago, 208 Ill. App. 3d 748, 750, 567 N.E.2d 592, 153 Ill. Dec. 634 (1991), this court found the defendant city not liable when an adult bicyclist had been injured on a sidewalk. The city had an ordinance stating, “‘No person twelve or more years of age shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk in any district ***.'” Prokes, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 749 (quoting Chicago Municipal Code § 27-296 (1984)).

[*P55] In both Prokes and Montanto, the adult plaintiffs were not found to be intended users of the premises on which they were injured because they had violated a Chicago ordinance. However, defendant does not cite a case where a child was charged with the responsibility of knowing municipal ordinances, without a sign or other notice.

[*P56] In addition, nothing in the record shows that even adult members of the public had any means of knowing that CPD had allegedly designated this particular park for a certain age group. [HN9] Publication [**18] of ordinances is necessary so that the public can be informed of the contents of ordinances. City of Rockford v. Suski, 90 Ill. App. 3d 681, 685, 413 N.E.2d 527, 46 Ill. Dec. 87 (1980). It is a long-established principle that members of the public must have a reasonable opportunity to be informed of an ordinance so that they may conform their conduct accordingly and avoid liability under the ordinance. Schott v. People, 89 Ill. 195, 197-98 (1878). While the CPD Code prohibited children age 12 and over from playing on playgrounds “designed” for children younger than 12, nothing in the CPD Code stated that this particular park was designated for children under age 12 or that this slide was designed for children under age 12. The CPD website for the park, attached to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, mentions no age range, only stating: “This park features a playground and swings and green space. It is an active community park.”

[*P57] There were also no signs on the playground or any other indications that the playground was designated or designed for children under 12 years old. Plaintiff states in her affidavit that the park did not have a sign designating the playground for younger children. Robert Rejman, CPD’s director of development and planning, admitted at his deposition that he did not [**19] know whether there was a sign posted. Nothing in the record shows that CPD took any measures to prevent children age 12 and older from using this park. Playgrounds are designed for children. What would prompt a 13-year-old child to observe a slide and think, “am I really the intended user of this slide?”

[*P58] CPD stated that plaintiff presented no case or legal authority to support the assumption that all community members are intended users of a park called a “community park.” However, [HN10] it is the defendant’s burden to prove that it is immune from liability. Bubb v. Springfield School District 186, 167 Ill. 2d 372, 377-78, 657 N.E.2d 887, 212 Ill. Dec. 542 (1995); Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 370, 799 N.E.2d 273, 278 Ill. Dec. 555 (2003). In addition, CPD has pointed to no legal authority claiming that the public generally is not allowed to use public parks.

[*P59] Plaintiff contends that CPD did not follow the administrative provisions in chapter 7, section C, of the CPD Code for designating the playground as solely for children under the age of 12 years old. However, we do not consider this issue, because [HN11] issues not raised in the trial court are waived and may not be considered for the first time on appeal. Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525, 536, 662 N.E.2d 1248, 215 Ill. Dec. 108 (1996). Nothing in plaintiff’s complaint or her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment argued that CPD failed to follow its own administrative procedures under [**20] chapter 7, section C, of the CPD Code.

[*P60] Defendant argues that placing signage is discretionary, and it has no duty to post its ordinances at every park. The CPD Code is available online; however, the Code does not state which parks have been designated for a certain age group. [HN12] An ordinance is invalid if a municipality cannot prove it was published (Suski, 90 Ill. App. 3d at 685), and here there is no showing that it was published.

[*P61] CONCLUSION

[*P62] We must reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment which was granted solely on the basis that a 13-year-old was not an intended user of the slide.

[*P63] First, the defendant does not cite a case where a child was charged with the responsibility of knowing municipal ordinances, without a sign or other notice, nor can we find such a case.

[*P64] Second, defendant failed to inform park users of any age, by any means, that this park and the slide were intended for children younger than age 12.

[*P65] For these reasons, we must reverse. We remand for the trial court to decide whether the slide’s condition was open and obvious, and whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide after being notified was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P66] Reversed and remanded.


Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc., 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1401

Turene Lombard and Pueblo School District #60, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a The Nature Place; and Sanborn Western Camps, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation, d/b/a The Nature Place, Defendants-Appellees.
Court of Appeals No. 09CA2704
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1401
August 18, 2011, Decided
NOTICE:
THIS OPINION IS NOT THE FINAL VERSION AND SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON FINAL PUBLICATION
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
Teller County District Court No. 02CV49. Honorable Edward S. Colt, Judge.

COUNSEL: James M. Croshal, Pueblo, Colorado; Mickey W. Smith, Pueblo, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant Turene Lombard.
Ritsema & Lyon, P.C., Paul D. Feld, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant Pueblo School District #60.
Taylor Anderson LLP, John M. Roche, Kevin S. Taylor, Jared E. Berg, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees.
JUDGES: Opinion by JUDGE ROY. J. Jones and Criswell*, JJ., concur.
* Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2010.
OPINION BY: ROY
OPINION
Plaintiffs, Turene Lombard (invitee) and Pueblo School District #60 (school district), appeal from the judgment entered on a jury verdict and the order awarding costs in favor of defendants, Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc. and Sanborn Western Camps, Inc. (owners), in this action under section 13-21-115, C.R.S. 2010 (premises liability act). We affirm the judgment, and affirm the order awarding costs in part and vacate it in part.
In February 2000 at the request of school district, invitee, a teacher employed by the district, attended an overnight [*2] training session which was held at a conference facility and resort owned and operated by owners. The resort had, among others buildings, eleven fourplex buildings, each unit of which had a main floor sleeping area, kitchenette, bathroom, and loft. Access to the loft was gained by a wooden ladder, with no handrails, that was fixed to the wall at the top and to the floor a distance from the wall at the bottom. In her unit, invitee climbed the ladder to the loft, which was equipped with a mattress, to read. She was injured when she fell descending the ladder.
Because invitee was within her scope of employment, she applied for and received substantial workers’ compensation benefits. Invitee and school district brought a joint action against owners under the premises liability act.
Owners filed, and the trial court granted, a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that they knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on their property. Invitee appealed, and a division of this court affirmed. Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 179 P.3d 16 (Colo. App. 2007). On certiorari review, our supreme court reversed and remanded for trial. Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) [*3] (Lombard).
At trial, invitee presented evidence of the fall and the injuries she sustained. Through expert testimony, she presented evidence that the applicable building code required a code-compliant staircase for access to an upper floor habitable space, and that the acceptance of a ladder as an alternative design was not permitted by the building code because a ladder is not as safe as a staircase. She argued that owners knew or should have known the ladder was dangerous because it allegedly violated the building code.
Owners presented evidence that (1) they had no actual notice that the ladder constituted a dangerous condition; (2) the plans for the unit depicting the ladder access to the loft were approved by the county building department, which administered the building code; (3) the county building department issued a certificate of occupancy following the completion of construction; and (4) they had never received reports of any incidents involving, or injuries resulting from, the use of the ladders in the twenty-four years since the construction of the first units. In addition, there was conflicting evidence from which owners argued that invitee was negligent in her use of [*4] the ladder, and that her negligence was the cause of her injuries.
Following a seven-day trial, a jury returned a verdict for owners and responded to interrogatories on the verdict form as follows:
Question No. 1: Did the [plaintiffs] have injuries, damages and losses?
Answer No. 1: Yes
Question No. 2: Did [owners] . . . actually know about a danger on their property or using reasonable care should have known about it?
Answer No. 2: No
Question No. 3: Did the [owners] fail to use reasonable care to protect against the danger on their property?
Answer No. 3: No
Question No. 4: Was the [owners’] failure a cause of the [invitee’s] injuries, damages or losses.
Answer No. 4: No
(Emphasis added.)
Owners sought costs jointly and severally against invitee and school district, which the trial court awarded. This appeal followed.
At the outset, we note that there was no dispute that invitee was a business invitee within the meaning of the premises liability statute and that she suffered injuries. Invitee’s arguments focus on the jury’s negative response to the second interrogatory. These arguments assert error with respect to (1) the instructions given or refused; (2) the trial court’s refusal to admit [*5] into evidence plans for units constructed after the unit in question, which characterized the loft as “storage”; (3) the trial court’s refusal to allow invitee to call a third expert witness on the building code; and (4) the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that an owner’s duties under the premises liability act are not delegable.
I. Premises Liability Act and Negligence Per Se
Because this case involves the relationship, if any, between the premises liability act and the common law doctrine of negligence per se, we deem it appropriate to begin with a discussion of that relationship after our supreme court’s decision in Lombard.
Negligence is the failure to do an act a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably careful person would not do, under the same or similar circumstances to protect oneself or others from bodily injury. Lawson v. Safeway, Inc., 878 P.2d 127, 130 (Colo. App. 1994); Woolsey v. Holiday Health Clubs & Fitness Centers, Inc., 820 P.2d 1201, 1204 (Colo. App. 1991). A person bringing a negligence claim must establish a duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Redden v. SCI Colorado Funeral Services, Inc., 38 P.3d 75, 80 (Colo. 2001); [*6] Miller v. Byrne, 916 P.2d 566, 577 (Colo. App. 1995).
Negligence per se is a common law doctrine which provides that legislative enactments, such as statutes and ordinances, can prescribe the standard of conduct of a reasonable person, or duty, such that a violation of the statute or ordinance constitutes a breach of duty of care. Lombard, 187 P.3d at 573. A plaintiff may recover under a negligence per se theory if he or she can establish that the defendant violated the statutory standard of care, that the statutory standard of care was intended to protect against the injuries sustained, and that the violation was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained. Id. Negligence per se, therefore, serves to conclusively establish the defendant’s breach of a legally cognizable duty owed to the plaintiff. Id.
Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(I), C.R.S. 2010, establishes a standard of care owed by a property owner to an invitee: “an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known.” (Emphasis added.)
Lombard was decided in a summary judgment context. In that context, owners [*7] were required to show that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. C.R.C.P. 56(c). Invitee, therefore was tasked to show through affidavits and other materials that there was a genuine issue as to a material fact and did so by producing evidence sufficient to raise negligence per se.
In discussing negligence per se in the premises liability act context, our supreme court stated in pertinent part:
The language of the premises liability statute makes clear that a party may no longer bring a negligence per se claim against a landowner to recover for damages caused on the premises. The premises liability statute is broad reaching in its scope . . . .
[In Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo. 2004), we concluded that the premises liability statute’s] “express, unambiguous language . . . evidences the General Assembly’s intent to establish a comprehensive and exclusive specification of the duties landowners owe to those injured on their property.” 103 P.3d at 328. We noted that “the General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area.” Id. As such, we concluded [*8] that “the plain language preempts prior common law theories of liability, and establishes the statute as the sole codification of landowner duties in tort.” Id. Thus, it would be entirely inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and the holdings of this court to bypass the [premises liability] statute and allow for the imposition of liability on the basis of a negligence per se claim. Consequently, we conclude that a plaintiff may recover against the landowner pursuant to the statute only and not under any other theory of negligence.
However, in addressing the premises liability statute, it is an entirely separate question whether proof of the landowner’s violation of a statute intended for the plaintiff’s protection is evidence of the landowner’s “unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care.”. . . . Consequently, although the premises liability statute has abrogated certain common law claims and defenses in the premises liability context, we do not find that the General Assembly has clearly expressed its intent to abrogate the common law principle that the violation of a statute is evidence of a failure to exercise due care. See Vigil, 103 P.3d at 327 . . . .
In the [*9] absence of guiding legislative intent to the contrary, we conclude that the General Assembly did not intend to preclude a party from arguing that certain statutes and ordinances are relevant to establishing the standard of reasonable care, and thus that the violation of that statute or ordinance is evidence of a failure to exercise reasonable care.
. . . .
In sum, we hold that with respect to the statutory requirement regarding the landowner’s failure to exercise reasonable care, the plaintiff may overcome the landowner’s summary judgment motion by presenting evidence that the landowner violated a statute or ordinance. By necessity, this holding incorporates the common law’s requirement that the plaintiff show he is a member of the class the statute was intended to protect, and that the injuries he suffered were of the kind the statute was enacted to prevent.
Lombard, 187 P.3d at 574-75 (emphasis added)(additional citations omitted). Guided by this exposition, we address invitee’s arguments.
II. Jury Instructions
Invitee argues initially that the trial court erred in failing to deliver four instructions to the jury. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
We review jury instructions de novo to [*10] determine whether the instructions as a whole accurately informed the jury of the governing law. Fishman v. Kotts, 179 P.3d 232, 235 (Colo. App. 2007). We consider the court’s instructions as a whole. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Kerns, 172 Colo. 59, 63-64, 470 P.2d 34, 36-37 (1970). It follows that it is not error for the trial court to refuse a tendered instruction which correctly states an applicable legal proposition when the instructions given, taken as a whole, properly instruct the jury on that proposition. Id.; see also Underwood v. Dillon Cos., 936 P.2d 612, 615 (Colo. App. 1997).
Finally, Lombard is binding precedent and the law of the case. People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Colo. 1983) (citing Dando Co. v. Mangini, 107 Colo. 170, 172, 109 P.2d 1055, 1055-56 (1941); Morton v. Laesch, 52 Colo. 541, 125 P. 498 (1912); and Cache La Poudre Reservoir Co. v. Water Supply & Storage Co., 27 Colo. 532, 62 P. 420 (1900))(law of the case)); People v. Pahl, 169 P.3d 169, 176 (Colo. App. 2006)(binding precedent);.
B. Legal Presumption Instruction
Invitee tendered the following legal presumption instruction, which the trial court rejected:
Presumptions are legal rules based upon experience [*11] and public policy and established in the law to help the jury decide a case. If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the ladder in [the unit in question] violated the Teller County Building Code, then you must find that the [owners] . . . knew or should have known that the ladder was a dangerous condition and that the [owners] failed to take steps to guard against that dangerous condition.
(Emphasis added.)
This proposed instruction by its terms would have created a conclusive presumption that, if the jury found there was a violation of a building code, owners were presumed to know not only of the violation but also that the violation constituted a dangerous condition within the meaning of the premises liability act, and that owners failed to take steps to guard against that dangerous condition. This proposed presumption instruction is contrary to the express holding and rationale of Lombard, which is that the violation of a statute or ordinance may be considered merely as “evidence of a failure to exercise reasonable care.” Lombard, 187 P.3d at 575 (emphasis added).
The trial court instructed the jury: “If you find that [owners] violated the applicable building code, you [*12] may consider that violation as evidence that [owners] failed to exercise reasonable care. You must consider all evidence regarding this issue in determining whether [owners] exercised reasonable care.”
The trial court further instructed the jury:
For the Plaintiffs . . . to recover . . . on their claims of premises liability, you must find all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) The Plaintiffs had injuries, damages and losses;
(2) The Defendants actually knew about a danger on their property, or as persons or corporations using reasonable care, should have known about it;
(3) The Defendants failed to use reasonable care to protect against the danger of their property; and
(4) The Defendants’ failure was a cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries, damages, or losses . . . .
These instructions correctly state the law under the common law and the premises liability act, and they are consistent with Lombard. That is, the jury could consider a building code violation as evidence that owners had failed to use reasonable care.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in rejecting the proposed legal presumption instruction.
C. Other Instructions
Invitee further argues that [*13] the trial court erred in rejecting the following proposed instructions:
(1) If the [owners] had to familiarize themselves with the Teller County Building Code in constructing [the unit in question], you may infer from that fact that the [owners] had or should have had notice that the ladder was a dangerous condition.
(2) The law requires the [owners] . . . to have known the requirement of the Teller County Building Code in effect at the time they built on their property any structures governed by the Code.
(3) If you find that [owners] or the Teller County Building Department knew or should have known that the ladder in question was a dangerous condition and failed to take reasonable steps to protect against it and that this dangerous condition resulted in [invitee’s] injuries, then you must find for the Plaintiffs on their claim for premises liability.
(Emphasis added.)
The first and third proposed instructions suffer from the same infirmity discussed above, that is, they equate knowledge of a violation of the building code with knowledge that the violation creates a dangerous condition within the meaning of the premises liability act. As invitee conceded in oral argument, however, not [*14] every violation of a building code results in a dangerous condition, or notice of a dangerous condition, within the meaning of the premises liability act.
The third rejected proposed instruction also suffers from a still more profound inconsistency with the law. It stated that if the county building department knew or should have known that the ladder constituted a dangerous condition, that knowledge would be imputed to owners, in presumably the same manner as notice to the officers, directors, employees, or contractors of owners is so imputed. Invitee has not provided, and we have not been able to find, any legal authority supporting this proposition.
The second proposed instruction is, standing alone, a correct statement of the law. However, the trial court sufficiently and correctly instructed the jury that (1) corporations can act only through their officers, employees, or agents; (2) any act or omission of an officer, employee, or agent of a corporation while acting within the scope of his or her employment is the act or omission the corporation; (3) a corporation knows a fact if it or its agents or employees have information that would lead a reasonable person to inquire further [*15] and that inquiry would have revealed that fact; and (4) parties are presumed to know the law applicable to their conduct, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In summary, the trial court did not err in rejecting the proposed instructions because the first and third were incorrect statements of the law and the jury was otherwise adequately and correctly instructed as to the second.
III. Evidentiary Rulings
Invitee next contends that the trial court erred in denying admission of a set of plans for the construction of units in 1990, and in prohibiting an expert witness endorsed by invitee from testifying. She further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a video demonstrating the use of the ladder because it had not been timely disclosed. We disagree with all three contentions.
A. 1990 Plans
A trial court has substantial discretion in deciding questions concerning the relevance and admissibility of evidence. Palizzi v. City of Brighton, 228 P.3d 957, 962 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, we will not disturb a trial court’s evidentiary ruling unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary, [*16] unreasonable, or unfair. Id.
At trial, invitee offered the 1990 building plans for lofts built in that year. Though the plans from which the loft in question was constructed showed a mattress in the loft implying that it was for occupancy, the 1990 plans designated the loft, as “storage space.” The trial court excluded the plans as irrelevant because they were drawn eight years after the unit at issue was constructed, and, relying on CRE 403, concluded that there was a significant chance that the plans could mislead the jury and confuse the issues.
Invitee argues that the 1990 plans put owners on notice that the unit in question here violated the building code, by showing a change in the designated use of the loft space. There was, however, ample evidence introduced through invitee’s expert witnesses that the ladder in the unit violated the building code at the time of its construction. Further the trial court instructed the jury that owners are required to follow the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and a violation of the building code is evidence that owners failed to exercise reasonable care.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying [*17] admission of the 1990 plans into evidence.
B. Expert Testimony
Next, invitee contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting her third endorsed expert witness on the building code from testifying. Before a trial scheduled in 2005, invitee endorsed three liability experts. Before the 2009 trial, owners filed a motion requesting that the trial court limit invitee to only one expert witness on each issue. The trial court denied the motion.
At trial, owners objected to the second building code expert testifying because the testimony would be cumulative. In overruling the objection, the trial court stated:
We spent the bulk of the day on the first [building code] witness. And I will tell you right now that if I do allow this testimony, it will be much more streamlined. Quite frankly, it — I’m going to rule on this as it comes, and if I find it to be cumulative, I will rule on it at the time. I’m not going to do it in advance. But I will put the parties on notice that we won’t be spending much time on these extra experts. So you prepare your direct accordingly, sir, because we simply don’t have time.
Invitee argued that the third expert’s testimony would not be cumulative because he was an [*18] architect with experience examining building plans, whereas her first two experts were not plan examiners. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the nearly seven hours of expert testimony on the alleged building code violations were sufficient.
We see no abuse of discretion here. Invitee did not demonstrate in the trial court, and does not do so here, that the third building code expert’s testimony added anything substantive to the evidence. Invitee’s counsel conceded at trial that the testimony was cumulative, stating that the third expert merely had a different background than those of the first two experts. Therefore, so would go the argument, the third expert would bolster and corroborate the testimony of the first two or, in the alternative, the third expert’s testimony would be more credible than that of the first two because of his different experience.
On appeal, invitee also contends that the trial court’s refusal to let the third expert testify violates the law of the case doctrine because the trial court had previously denied owners’ motion limiting expert witnesses. However, rulings made in the course of ongoing proceedings are interlocutory and may be rescinded or modified [*19] during those proceedings on proper grounds. In re Bass, 142 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Colo. 2006).
Therefore, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to permit the testimony of the third building code expert and conclude that invitee has failed to demonstrate any prejudice from that refusal.
C. Video
Invitee next argues that the trial court erred in permitting owners to show to the jury a video recording of a person climbing up and down the ladder to one of the lofts. We disagree.
Whether to allow the use of models or other materials for the purpose of demonstration is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Hampton v. People, 171 Colo. 101, 106, 465 P.2d 112, 114 (1970).
At the outset, we reject invitee’s law of the case argument for the reasons already stated.
Invitee filed a pretrial motion in limine requesting that the video (actually a collection of short videos) be excluded because it had not been timely disclosed. The trial court granted the motion, but later said it would reconsider the matter.
After the testimony of the first building code expert who had inspected the property, the trial court requested a copy of the video for review before ruling on whether [*20] to permit its use. At the time the video was offered, ten days after the trial court had indicated it would reconsider its admission, invitee argued for a mistrial, claiming that the admission of the video was prejudicial based on its untimely disclosure, not its content. Indeed, counsel stated, “I wouldn’t say that [the video is] prejudicial after review.”
In rejecting this argument, the trial court noted that invitee had been on notice for more than ten days that the court was going to review the video and make a decision on its admissibility. When the video was played for the jury, invitee cross-examined the witness and published to the jury several still images from the video.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video.
IV. Insurance
Invitee next argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial after owners’ counsel implied during his examination of witnesses and in closing argument that any money judgment would be paid by owners, when, in fact, owners were well insured. We are not persuaded.
Evidence that a party did, or did not, carry liability insurance, is not admissible. CRE 411.
During the examination of [*21] witnesses and in closing argument, invitee’s counsel made contemporaneous objections and eventually a motion for mistrial after the three following statements by owners’ counsel: (1) “Well as the attorney for the camp that is going to have to pay that money,” (2) “My client [has] to pay millions of dollars in the case,” and (3) “Rely on what you know to be true about personal responsibility and personal choices, and award no damages to [invitee] or [school district] payable by my client.”
The trial court overruled all of the objections, commenting as to the first objection that the courtroom was in such bedlam that the court doubted the jury heard the statement. The trial court overruled the second and third objections and denied the motion for a mistrial without comment.
An attorney’s attempt to refer to insurance coverage or a lack thereof at trial is improper. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dist. Court, 617 P.2d 556, 559-60 (Colo. 1980). We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Palizzi, 228 P.3d at 962. A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Id.
In addition, “mere inadvertent or incidental mention [*22] of insurance [or the lack of insurance] before the jury does not automatically call for a mistrial; unless prejudice is shown, there is no reversible error in denying a mistrial.” Jacobs v. Commonwealth Highland Theatres, Inc., 738 P.2d 6, 12 (Colo. App. 1986). Indeed, “only when the mention of insurance occurs in a flagrant manner that clearly prejudices the rights of a [party] is the trial court’s denial of the motion for a mistrial reversible error.” Cook Investment Co. v. Seven-Eleven Coffee Shop, Inc., 841 P.2d 333, 335 (Colo. App. 1992).
We cannot say that any of these statements, taken individually or cumulatively, was flagrant. Nor do we perceive any prejudice to invitee. The trial court is ultimately in the best position to determine the effect on the jury of these types of comments.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
V. Costs
Invitee next argues that the award of costs for expert witness fees for witnesses who were not called at trial and photocopying of owners’ client file upon substitution of counsel was error. We disagree as to the expert witness, but agree as to the photocopy expense.
Generally, a trial court enjoys broad discretion in [*23] awarding costs, and we will not overturn such an award absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v. Belfor USA Group, Inc, 201 P.3d 1253, 1261 (Colo. App. 2008).
Here, after a hearing, the trial court entered a written order in which it concluded that, “the costs requested by the prevailing party . . . were reasonable and necessary and properly awardable against plaintiffs.”
A. Non-testifying Expert Witness
First, invitee argues that the cost of the expert witnesses who were retained for purposes of testimony, but who did not testify, should not have been awarded. However, costs are permitted for non-testifying experts hired to provide advisory or consulting services, Mgmt. Specialists, Inc. v. Northfield Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 32, 38-39 (Colo. App. 2004), and costs are permitted for experts who do not testify “because some extrinsic circumstance rendered their testimony unnecessary.” Clayton v. Snow, 131 P.3d 1202, 1203 (Colo. App. 2006).
In this case, the experts’ testimony was not proffered because owners’ counsel concluded that the cross-examination of invitee’s experts was sufficient. The trial court found that the advice and assistance of owners’ experts contributed to the cross-examination [*24] of invitee’s experts.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to award the costs of experts who were not called to testify.
B. Copying Owners’ Client File
Invitee also argues that the trial court erred in awarding owners’ costs for copying owners’ client file upon the discharge of owners’ first counsel. We agree.
Invitee relies, in part, on Colorado Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 104, Surrender of Papers to the Client upon Termination of the Representation (1999). That opinion deals with the obligation of an attorney upon termination of the representation to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests, including surrender of the client’s papers and property. While the analysis there is somewhat more extended, the fundamental premise of the opinion is that the client file is the property of the client and must be surrendered upon request. With respect to copying the client file prior to surrender, the opinion states, in part:
Numerous questions may arise concerning the costs of duplication of the papers and property at the time of delivery. Generally, consistent with recognition that the file must be surrendered to the client, absent agreement [*25] to the contrary, it is the lawyer’s responsibility to bear duplication costs if the lawyer believes that the lawyer should retain a copy. The fact that copies of documents may have been provided to the client previously does not eliminate the responsibility of the lawyer to provide the client with the file. If the lawyer wishes to keep copies of the documents to which the client is entitled, the lawyer can do so at his own expense.
While the Ethics Committee does not express opinions on the law, its guidance in this regard is, nevertheless, useful.
Here, owners, for whatever reason, voluntarily agreed to pay the discharged counsel the cost of photocopying the client file for the benefit or protection of counsel. Because owners agreed to pay that which they had no other obligation to pay, we conclude that we must vacate the order of the trial court awarding the cost of photocopying owners’ client file.
VI. School District’s Liability for Costs
School district contends that the trial court erred in awarding costs against it because it is a political subdivision of the state of Colorado and is exempt from an award of costs by C.R.C.P. 54(d). We agree.
C.R.C.P. 54(d) states that “costs shall [*26] be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs; but costs against the state of Colorado, its officers or agencies, shall be imposed only to the extent permitted by law.” (Emphasis added.)
School district, as a public school district, is a political subdivision of the state. Hazlet v. Gaunt, 126 Colo. 385, 397, 250 P.2d 188, 194 (1952).
In Waters v. District Court, 935 P.2d 981, 990 (Colo. 1997), an indigent parent’s appointed counsel brought a successful mandamus against the district court to compel payment of attorney fees incurred in the underlying action and requested an award of costs incurred in the mandamus action. In denying costs, our supreme court stated:
With regard to the State, we have interpreted these rules to mean that costs may be awarded against the State where there is an express legislative provision for costs against the State or where the State is in the position of a party litigant against whom costs are otherwise legislatively authorized to be awarded. See Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water & Sanitation Dist. v. City & County of Denver, 928 P.2d 1254, 1273-74 (Colo. 1996); Central Colo. Water v. Simpson, 877 P.2d 335, 349 (Colo. 1994); [*27] Passarelli v. Schoettler, 742 P.2d 867, 872 (Colo. 1987); Division of Employment & Training v. Turynski, 735 P.2d 469, 472-73 n.5 (Colo. 1987); Board of County Comm’rs v. Slovek, 723 P.2d 1309, 1313 (Colo. 1986); Lee v. Colorado Dep’t of Health, 718 P.2d 221, 228-29 (Colo. 1986). In this case, however, there exists no substantive legislative authorization for the award of costs separate from C.R.C.P. 59(d) and C.A.R. 39(b). The provision in CJD 89-3 for attorney fees and costs does not apply to Waters because she is representing herself, rather than her client, in this action. Thus, we find that the rationale of Central Colorado Water is applicable to this case, and we deny Waters’s request for costs in bringing this original proceeding.
935 P.2d at 990; see also Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119, 130 (Colo. 2005). Merely showing that the state is in the position of a party-litigant is insufficient to award costs against the state under a general costs provision. Farmers Reservoir, 113 P.3d at 130.
Here, owners have sought costs under C.R.C.P. 54(d), section 13-16-105, C.R.S. 2010, and section 13-16-122, C.R.S. 2010.1 These provisions are general costs [*28] provisions.
1 Section 13-16-105 reads, “If any person sues in any court of record in this state in any action wherein . . . a verdict is passed against him, then the defendant shall have judgment to recover his costs against the plaintiff . . . and the same shall be recovered of the plaintiff or demandant, by like process as the plaintiff or demandant might have had against the defendant, in case judgment has been given for the plaintiff or demandant.” Section 13-16-122 lists some items recoverable as costs.
Owners argue that because the school district initiated the proceeding, it waived any immunity from costs. They cite Division of Employment & Training v. Turynski, 735 P.2d 469, 472 n.5 (Colo. 1987), in support of this argument. In the footnote, our supreme court stated, in pertinent part, that, “by appealing the industrial commission’s award of benefits to the court of appeals and by petitioning for certiorari from the court of appeals’ affirmance of the commission ruling, [the state agency] had waived immunity and caused the claimant to incur high costs.” Id. The court cited Lee v. Colorado Department of Health, 718 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1986), in which a successful litigant under the [*29] Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), §§ 24-10-101 to -120, C.R.S. 2010, recovered the each-person statutory limit on damages, which is inclusive of costs and interest of $150,000, and sought an award of costs against the department. The department’s insurance had a policy limit of $150,000 for each person and, in addition, a provision for the payment of costs and interest. The CGIA provided that if a public entity was insured with policy limits in excess of the statutory limit, the policy limits controlled. Our supreme court reversed the trial court’s award of costs but remanded for consideration of the applicability and scope of the insurance policy’s costs provision.
Lee is extremely limited in its scope, that is, the award of costs is limited by the insurance policy liability limits if higher than the statutory limit which includes costs and interest. Turynski, in our view, is not persuasive here because it arose in an administrative proceeding to which C.R.C.P. 54(d), section 13-16-105, and section 13-16-122, do not apply.
In addition, in interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, which is, for all practical purposes, identical to C.R.C.P. 54, federal courts have been clear that “in [*30] the absence of a statute directly authorizing it, courts will not give judgment against the United States for costs or expenses.” Walling v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 162 F.2d 95, 96 (4th Cir. 1947) (quoting United States v. Worley, 281 U.S. 339, 344 (1930)). This is true even if the costs are incurred in an unsuccessful action brought by the United States. Id., (citing DeGroot v. United States, 72 U.S. 419 (1866)).2
2 The school district is bringing a subrogation claim as it is self-insured for workers’ compensation coverages. § 8-41-203, C.R.S. 2010. It has long been recognized that public entities acting in a proprietary capacity are treated the same as private corporations. See, e.g., City of Northglenn v. City of Thornton, 193 Colo. 536, 542, 569 P.2d 319, 323 (1977)(water utility); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. City of Fort Collins, 68 Colo. 364, 189 P. 929 (1920) (same); Valdez v. Moffat County, 161 Colo. 361, 423 P.2d 7 (1967)(hospital). The school district appears to be litigating in a proprietary capacity. We have not found any authority in which the governmental-proprietary distinction has been applied to the award of costs under C.R.C.P. 54(b) or [*31] similar rules in other jurisdictions.
We conclude the award of costs against school district must be vacated. Having so concluded, we need not address school district’s related argument that it was error to award costs against it on a joint and several basis with invitee.
The judgment is affirmed. The orders awarding costs for copying owners’ client file upon a change of counsel and awarding costs against school district are vacated, and the cost order is otherwise affirmed.
JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE CRISWELL concur.