United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, Senior United States District
Judge.
Plaintiff
Carol Reid fell on a single-step transition while visiting
Grand Canyon National Park. The building where Reid fell was
owned by the United States, through the National Park
Service, and was maintained and operated by Xanterra, a
contractor of the United States. Reid sued the United States
and Xanterra, alleging she fell as a result of the
“unreasonably dangerous condition” of the
single-step transition. (Doc. 18 at 3.) The United States
filed a crossclaim against Xanterra on the issue of
indemnification. (Doc. 25.)
The
United States moves for summary judgment on Reid's claims
and the United States' crossclaim against Xanterra, (Doc.
59), and Xanterra cross-moves for summary judgment (Doc. 68).
Xanterra also moves for summary judgment on Reid's claims
on the basis of the statute of limitations. (Doc. 61.) For
the following reasons, the United States' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is granted in part and denied in
part. Xanterra's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
68) is granted in part and denied in part. Xanterra's
Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims (Doc.
61) is granted.
BACKGROUND
Grand
Canyon National Park is owned by the United States of America
through the National Park Service
(“NPS”).[1] (Doc. 60 at 2.) The Director of the NPS
(the “Director”) acts “on behalf of the
Secretary of the Interior and the United States, and his duly
authorized representatives.” (Doc. 60-5 at 7.) The NPS
has entered into concession contracts with certain for-profit
concessioners to provide visitors with accommodations,
facilities, and services in the national parks. (Doc. 60 at
2.)
In
2002, NPS and Xanterra South Rim, [2] (“Xanterra” or
the “Concessioner”), entered into a concession
contract (the “Contract”). After its original
ten-year term, the Contract was renewed annually until it
expired on December 31, 2014. (Docs. 60 at 2; 60-3 at 42.)
The Contract required Xanterra to operate and maintain the
Mather Campground Camper Services Building (“Camper
Services”) and adjacent lands: “The Concessioner
shall provide, operate and maintain the required and
authorized visitor services and any related support
facilities and services in accordance with this Contract to
such an extent and in a manner considered satisfactory by the
Director.” (Doc. 60-5 at 11.) On a day to day basis,
Xanterra employees-rather than NPS employees-worked at Camper
Services. (Doc. 60-4 at 4.)
As part
of its maintenance duties, Xanterra conducted monthly safety
inspections, which involved a walkthrough of the facility and
evaluation of several items on a checklist. (Doc. 60 at 5.)
These monthly evaluations were for Xanterra's internal
operations and were not shared with NPS. (Doc. 60 at 5.) The
Contract provided NPS would conduct its own inspections:
“The NPS shall inspect and monitor concession
facilities and services with respect to NPS policy [and]
applicable standards . . . . The NPS will evaluate all
services and facilities operated by the Concessioner to
ensure public safety and health, ensure sound environmental
management, identify maintenance and operating deficiencies
as they may occur, and ensure satisfactory services and
accommodations for the general public within assigned areas
of responsibility.” (Doc. 60-5 at 49.) Additionally,
the Contract required the Director to “undertake
appropriate inspections, and shall establish and revise, as
necessary, a Maintenance Plan consisting of specific
requirements which shall be adhered to by the
Concessioner.” (Doc. 60-5 at 24.) The Maintenance Plan,
in turn, required Xanterra to prepare an annual
“written maintenance program to be completed during the
following year” and to submit it to the NPS. (Doc. 60-7
at 4.)
The
Contract was in place in September 2014, when Plaintiff Carol
Reid (“Reid”) visited Grand Canyon National Park.
On September 5, 2014, Reid went to Camper Services to use the
restroom. (Docs. 60 at 7; 67 at 3.) Reid entered the building
through a door that was at the same level on both sides of
the threshold. (Doc. 67 at 3.) After using the restroom, Reid
exited the building through a different door, although she
mistakenly believed she was exiting through the same door she
used to enter. (Doc. 67 at 4.) The door through which she
exited had a single-step transition at the landing. (Docs. 60
at 7; 67 at 4). In other words, when someone exited through
that door, there was a single downward step to the ground.
(Docs. 60 at 7; 67 at 4.) The face (riser) and a portion of
the top edge of the single step were painted white. (Doc. 67
at 4.) There was no signage on or near the door alerting
visitors to the single-step change in elevation. (Doc. 67 at
4.) Reid testified the outdoors area was a “covered
patio area.” (Doc. 69-1 at 2.)
When
Reid exited the door to go outside, she followed “a
gentleman in front of [her] who opened the door” and
held it open. (Docs. 67-1 at 1; 69-1 at 3.) Reid testified
there was a second man in front of him, “who was
standing on what [she] later understood to be the
step.” (Doc. 67-1 at 2.) In order to exit the area,
Reid moved to get around the man holding the door, taking two
or three steps to the right. (Doc. 67 at 4.) Reid testified:
“I sidled to my right. And within a couple of sidles, I
found that my right foot was not in contact with a hard
surface, and I tumbled to my right and cratered down on my
right wrist.” (Doc. 67-1 at 2.) Right before she fell,
Reid did not look down and was not “watching where
[her] feet were falling.” (Doc. 69-1 at 7.) Reid
alleges the fall caused her to fracture her right ulna and
radius, which required her to undergo surgery. (Doc. 18 at
4.)
Reid
testified in deposition that when she fell, it was a clear
day in the “middle of the day.” (Doc. 69-1.) The
only lighting issue was associated with “coming out of
a lit building into a dark, covered patio area.” (Doc.
69-1 at 2.) Reid testified her view of the patio was
partially obstructed by the man holding the door in front of
her, but there was nothing obstructing her view of the patio
to the right. (Doc. 69-1 at 3.) Although there were signs on
the door that said “No Smoking” and “No
Firearms, ” Reid did not read them at the time. (Doc.
69-1 at 4.) Reid testified the single step transition was
neither cracked nor otherwise defective. (Doc. 69-1 at 5.)
Reid
sued the United States on March 27, 2017, alleging the
“unreasonably dangerous condition” of the
single-step transition caused her to fall and sustain
injuries. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The United States answered, averring
that pursuant to the Concession Contract, Xanterra
“possessed the camp services building” at the
time of the accident. (Doc. 7 at 2.) On October 10, 2017,
Reid filed an amended complaint, adding
Xanterra[3]as a defendant. (Doc. 18.) The United
States subsequently filed a crossclaim against Xanterra on
the issue of indemnification. (Doc. 25.)
Before
the Court are the United States' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 59), Xanterra's Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 68), [4] and Xanterra's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims (Doc. 61.) The Court
addresses each of the motions below.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Summary
judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Material facts are those that
“might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of material
fact is only genuine “if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
...