The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Monday that a parking garage owned by Jefferson County qualified as a “public building” and a resurfacing project that created a hazard amounted to “maintenance,” which, in combination, meant the county is not immune from liability for a woman’s slip-and-fall.

The case implicated the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which generally insulates public entities from liability. Its purpose was to prevent disruptions to government services and to protect tax dollars from being frequently diverted to pay injured parties.

There is an exception to the immunity, however, for the “dangerous condition of any public building,” meaning a defect caused while “constructing or maintaining” the facility.

Multiple government entities warned the Supreme Court about the financial burdens it would create by allowing Beverly Stickle to sue Jeffco over her injury in its parking garage. But the Supreme Court waved aside those concerns to find Jeffco’s faulty improvements to its garage fit the definition of dangerous condition in a public building.

The garage “falls under the ordinary definition of a ‘building,'” wrote Justice Melissa Hart in the Feb. 5 opinion.

Stickle originally sued Jefferson County for injuries she sustained on the upper level of a parking garage at the Jeffco Administration & Courts complex in February 2018. At the top landing was a dark gray walkway, with a step-down to the car lot — recently repainted the same color of gray. The change in elevation was marked by yellow paint, which was most evident when looking from the lot toward the landing.

From the walkway, however, the identical grays created an illusion, masking the step-down. Stickle fell and suffered a compound fracture in her right arm.

In response to Stickle’s lawsuit, Jeffco invoked the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. The county argued its parking garage was not a “building” and the resurfacing of the parking lot that created the illusion was not “maintenance.”

The state’s Court of Appeals disagreed.

“The undisputed facts establish that this topping material was added as part of the Maintenance Plan for the parking structure,” wrote Judge Anthony J. Navarro in 2022.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the county insisted its parking garage was not a building but simply a “structure.”

“How would you define ‘building?'” asked Justice William W. Hood III.

Assistant Deputy County Attorney Rebecca P. Klymkowsky argued a building has the “capacity to contain,” providing shelter for people, animals or property. The county headquarters adjacent to the garage was the building, she explained, but not the freestanding garage.

“Leave it to lawyers and judges to struggle with the meaning of ‘building,'” Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. quipped.

Professional associations representing Colorado’s municipalities, counties and special districts jointly wrote to the Supreme Court warning about the “new and unmanageable fiscal burden” that would result if parking garages suddenly could circumvent governmental immunity. They argued governments would also have a disincentive to upgrade their facilities through “maintenance” projects.

“For example, Denver International Airport is presently remodeling its terminal. Under the Court of Appeals’ approach, the redesign aspect of the terminal may no longer be protected under the CGIA exposing DIA to potential significant liability,” the governmental associations wrote.

The State Office of Risk Management also argued against equating “improvements that could make the facility last longer” with “maintenance.”

The Supreme Court declined to address the potential effects of its decision, noting Jeffco itself included the parking lot resurfacing as part of its major maintenance plan, intended to prevent degradation of the concrete. Hart noted that projects with even a partial connection to maintenance fall within the exception to governmental immunity.

“Even accepting the County’s position that the resurfacing with the same materials was a design decision, the decision was part of a broader maintenance process,” she wrote.

Lawyers for the various governmental entities did not respond to an email seeking comment about the decision’s impact. The state’s risk management office said it is reviewing the ruling.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last fall at Gateway High School in Aurora through its “Courts in the Community” program. In response to student questions, Klymkowsky disclosed the county had since fixed the step-down illusion where Stickle fell.

“Even if we don’t have a legal duty, we don’t want people to get hurt,” she said.

The case is County of Jefferson v. Stickle.