open and obvious danger doctrine in Colorado

2016See id. at 330-82 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad, 2015 COA 98, ¶12 , - P.3d -- ("[The General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA 'leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.'") (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc, 2013 COA 156, ¶41 , 338 P.3d 404 ("[The [JPLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions a

2016See id. at 330-32 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad , 2015 COA 98, ¶12 (“[T]he General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA ‘leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.’”) (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc. , 2013 COA 156, ¶41 (“[T]he PLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions are preempted.”); Teneyck

2016See id. at 330-82 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad, 2015 COA 98, ¶12 , - P.3d -- ("[The General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA 'leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.'") (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc, 2013 COA 156, ¶41 , 338 P.3d 404 ("[The [JPLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions a

2016See id. at 330-32 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad , 2015 COA 98, ¶12 (“[T]he General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA ‘leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.’”) (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc. , 2013 COA 156, ¶41 (“[T]he PLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions are preempted.”); Teneyck

2016See id. at 330-82 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad, 2015 COA 98, ¶12 , - P.3d -- ("[The General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA 'leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.'") (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc, 2013 COA 156, ¶41 , 338 P.3d 404 ("[The [JPLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions a

2016See id. at 330-32 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad , 2015 COA 98, ¶12 (“[T]he General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA ‘leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.’”) (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc. , 2013 COA 156, ¶41 (“[T]he PLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions are preempted.”); Teneyck

2016See id. at 330-82 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad, 2015 COA 98, ¶12 , - P.3d -- ("[The General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA 'leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.'") (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc, 2013 COA 156, ¶41 , 338 P.3d 404 ("[The [JPLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions a

2016See id. at 330-32 (the open and obvious danger defense to landowner liability does not apply to a premises liability claim); Lucero v. Ulvestad , 2015 COA 98, ¶12 (“[T]he General Assembly indicated its intent to completely occupy the field and supersede the existing law in the area, such that the PLA ‘leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.’”) (citation omitted); Rieger v. Wat Buddhawararam of Denver, Inc. , 2013 COA 156, ¶41 (“[T]he PLA provides the sole remedy against landowners for injuries occurring on their property, and other common law actions are preempted.”); Teneyck

2004Particularly in light of the Smith case, 726 P.2d 1125 , which was decided only a few years prior to the 1990 amendments, and its many predecessors, 14 the General Assembly's failure to include any textual reference to open and obvious dangers is particularly enlightening.

2004See Smith v. City & County of Denver, supra, 726 P.2d at 1127-28 (person diving off rock cliff into river) Webb v. Thomas, supra, 188 Colo. at 464, 296 P.2d at 1039 (patron of commercial swimming pool injured while diving in shallow part of pool).

2004Smith, 726 P.2d at 1125 , Webb v. Thomas, 133 Colo. 458 , 296 P.2d 1036 (1956), Phipps v. Mitze, 116 Colo. 288, 292 , 180 P.2d 233, 235 (1947) (danger of reservoir was open and apparent therefore landowner not Hable for child's drowning).

2004See Smith v. City & County of Denver, supra, 726 P.2d at 1127-28 (person diving off rock cliff into river) Webb v. Thomas, supra, 188 Colo. at 464, 296 P.2d at 1039 (patron of commercial swimming pool injured while diving in shallow part of pool).

2013If the General Assembly had intended to disqualify commissioners based on their "appearance of partiality," the statute could have explicitly stated that standard. 'See, eg., Vigil v. Franklin, 108 P.B8d 822, 380 (Colo. 2004) ("Since the General Assembly is presumed to have knowledge of existing case law, had the General Assembly intended to limit the preemption of landowner liability by retaining the open-and obvious danger doctrine, it could have done so.") (internal citation omitted); see also People v. Drenmon, 860 P.2d 589, 591 (Colo.App.1993) ("If the General Assembly had intended the re

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004Smith, 726 P.2d at 1125 , Webb v. Thomas, 133 Colo. 458 , 296 P.2d 1036 (1956), Phipps v. Mitze, 116 Colo. 288, 292 , 180 P.2d 233, 235 (1947) (danger of reservoir was open and apparent therefore landowner not Hable for child's drowning).

2004Smith, 726 P.2d at 1125 , Webb v. Thomas, 133 Colo. 458 , 296 P.2d 1036 (1956), Phipps v. Mitze, 116 Colo. 288, 292 , 180 P.2d 233, 235 (1947) (danger of reservoir was open and apparent therefore landowner not Hable for child's drowning).

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Lunsford, 908 P.2d at 84 .

2004It did so because it found, relying on one of the statute's statements of purpose, that it was "highly unlikely that the General Assembly intended to remove the protection of the open and obvious danger doctrine that landowners enjoyed under the generic negligence scheme." Vigil, 81 P.3d at 1088 (referring to § 13-21-115(1.5)(d)). 9 Grants of summary judgment are subject to de novo review.

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004See Hemphill v. Johnson, 230 Ga.App. 478, 481 , 497 S.E.2d 16, 19 (1998)(affirming summary judgment for landowner because "the existence and condition of [the swimming] pool was open and obvious"); Barham v. Knickrehm, 277 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1038 , 214 Ill.Dec. 721 , 661 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (1996)("A homeowner's above-ground swimming pool presents an open and obvious danger as a matter of law."); O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 207 , 726 N.E.2d 951, 957 (2000)("in granting summary judgment for the defendants, [the trial court] correctly concluded that the open and obvious danger rule obviated a

2004E.g., Morrison v. Goff, 91 P.3d 1050, 1052 (Colo.2004).