September 2018 - Parks & Recreation - 40

LAW REVIEW

The director of parks and tourism
concurred with the superintendent
that the city was unaware of any
defective condition that caused or
contributed to the incident.
fect claim against a landowner as
long as there exists a factual dispute regarding the landowner's
gross negligence with respect to
the alleged defect. "
According to the appeals court,
to establish the city's liability for
gross negligence under the state
recreational use statute, Woodkins would have to prove a city
employee had actual knowledge
of the premise defect. To demonstrate its lack of " actual knowledge, " the city relied on the affidavits of two city employees, the
parks superintendent and the di-

Parks & Recreation

rector of recreation and tourism.
The parks superintendent supervised maintenance and upkeep in
the city parks. Regarding the city's
knowledge of the drain cover's removal, the parks superintendent
testified his staff had " never removed or replaced the metal cover
during the course of their duties,
prior to the alleged incident involving Ms. Woodkins. " He did,
however, admit that he had observed " the drain cover to be missing from one of the drains in the
Complex, near the ball fields " after being notified of the incident
in which Woodkins was injured on
July 10, 2014.
Further, the parks superintendent testified that he did not " personally recall any work requests,
complaints, or injuries involving
the drains at the Complex " since its
opening in 2010. He also testified

| S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 8 | W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G

that he had " not heard or found
any reports on the drain cover ever
being removed " prior to Woodkins' injury. According to the parks
superintendent, " work requests "
could be based on " an observation
by crew leaders or complaints and
requests " submitted to the parks
department by the public.
The parks superintendent testified that routine maintenance reports for the complex in the days
immediately preceding Woodkins'
injury did not reference a " work
order for the drain or the drain
cover. " Based on his information,
the parks superintendent testified
" the City was unaware of any defective condition that caused or
contributed to the incident. " The
director of parks and tourism concurred with the superintendent
that the city was unaware of any
defective condition that caused or
contributed to the incident on or
prior to the date of Ms. Woodkins'
fall on July 10, 2014.
Despite this testimony from
the parks superintendent and director that the city was " unaware
of any defective condition " prior to Woodkins' injury, the appeals court found " these affidavits
fall short of negating the actual-knowledge component of gross
negligence. "
While the superintendent had
testified his park staff did not remove the cover, in the opinion of
the court, this left open the possibility that the park staff may
have had " actual awareness of
the uncovered condition of the
trench. " Moreover, the appeals
court found " the lack of prior
complaints fails to establish conclusively that park staff did not,
in this particular instance, have

September 2018 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2018 - Parks & Recreation