Dickey ex rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff
In Dickey ex rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 205 Ariz. 1, 66 P.3d 44 (2003), the court did not analyze whether the immunity clause authorized the legislature to pass the recreational use statute, which conferred immunity on landowners unless they were guilty of willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct in causing injury to a recreational user. Id. at 2, P 6, 66 P.3d at 45.
The opinion does not reveal whether the plaintiffs raised the immunity clause as an issue, but it is possible that they did not because the recreational use statute applies to landowners generally, not specifically to governmental entities or employees.
The plaintiffs did argue, however, that the statute violated the anti-abrogation clause by depriving them of a cause of action against the City of Flagstaff for simple negligence. Id. at 3, P 8, 66 P.3d at 46.
In Dickey, because the City of Flagstaff held the park open to the public and did not charge admission or derive revenue from it, the park was a governmental function. 205 Ariz, at 5-6, PP 20-23, 66 P.3d at 48-49.