 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bell v. New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission12/22/1993
ime of the alleged accident, the park was being used for either the diversion or storage of water.
We are not persuaded by Defendants' arguments and read the plain language of the statute to the contrary. The statute addresses only present use and no other factor. Further, the statute does not contain any language which supports Defendants' interpretation. This Court will not read language into a statute that is not there. See .
Considering the ordinary language of Section 41-4-6 and the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute, we hold that immunity to Defendants was waived under Section 41-4-6. See . Because the evidence presented so far makes a prima facie showing that immunity was waived and there are genuine issues of material fact to be decided concerning negligence, we hold that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants. See
Conclusion
We reverse the summary judgment order and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary. Plaintiffs are awarded costs on appeal. The parties shall bear their own attorney fees on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BENNY E. FLORES, Judge
WE CONCUR:
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Chief Judge
RUDY S. APODACA, Judge
|