This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A six-year-old child, enrolled in a YMCA summer program, nearly drowned at a municipal swimming pool in Santa Fe. The child, who could not swim, was allowed into the pool without proper inquiry into her age or height, despite pool regulations requiring adult supervision for children under seven or shorter than 48 inches. Lifeguards failed to enforce these rules or adequately monitor the pool, leading to the child being found unconscious and face down in the water for several minutes, resulting in potential cognitive impairment (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The jury found the City of Santa Fe negligent, assigning 47% fault to the City, 43% to the YMCA, and 10% to the plaintiffs. The City’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied (paras 4, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (City of Santa Fe): Argued that the claim was one of negligent supervision, which is not covered under the Tort Claims Act, and that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss and in its jury instructions (paras 7, 17-19).
- Appellees (Plaintiffs): Contended that the City’s failure to provide adequate lifeguard services constituted negligent operation and maintenance of the pool, creating a dangerous condition under the Tort Claims Act (paras 8, 12).
Legal Issues
- Does the negligent provision of lifeguard services at a public swimming pool constitute negligent "operation or maintenance" under Section 41-4-6 of the Tort Claims Act?
- Were the jury instructions erroneous in allowing liability for negligent supervision?
- Was the admission of expert testimony prejudicial to the City?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the City’s actions fell under the waiver of immunity for negligent operation of a public facility under the Tort Claims Act (para 33).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Alarid and Donnelly JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the City’s failure to enforce pool safety rules and provide adequate lifeguard services constituted negligent operation of the pool, creating a dangerous condition for the public. This fell within the waiver of immunity under Section 41-4-6 of the Tort Claims Act, as the negligence affected the general public and not just the individual child (paras 12, 15-16, 20-21).
The Court distinguished this case from prior cases involving negligent supervision, emphasizing that the City’s actions went beyond supervision and involved the operation of the pool itself. The lifeguards’ failure to enforce safety rules and properly monitor the pool created a hazardous condition (paras 8-12, 20).
The jury instructions were found to accurately reflect the City’s duties and were not erroneous. The instructions focused on the City’s failure to enforce safety rules and provide adequate lifeguard services, which constituted negligent operation rather than mere supervision (paras 17-20).
The Court also rejected the City’s claims of unfair surprise and prejudice regarding expert testimony. The testimony was deemed relevant and within the trial court’s discretion to admit. Any errors in admitting certain evidence were found to be harmless, as they did not affect the substantial rights of the parties (paras 24-31).
Special Concurrence by Donnelly J.:
Donnelly J. agreed with the result but emphasized that the evidence supported a waiver of immunity based solely on negligent operation, not maintenance, under Section 41-4-6. He highlighted the distinction between "operation" and "maintenance," noting that the City’s failure to enforce safety rules and provide adequate lifeguard services fell under the former (paras 35-39).