The Colorado-based federal appeals court dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against Denver last month, which attempted to hold the city liable for her trip-and-fall on a floor mat in the security screening area of Denver International Airport.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed Ana Guardado of Los Angeles failed to show that DIA’s construction or maintenance was to blame for the hazardous condition. Therefore, under Colorado law, Denver was entitled to governmental immunity.

Guardado was traveling through DIA in August 2021 when she tripped on a floor mat in the Transportation Security Administration screening area, did a “face plant” and momentarily lost consciousness. She alleged she suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result.

Her lawsuit described the floor mat as “hidden,” “concealed,” a “traveler’s landmine” and a “Russian roulette trap.” She sought monetary damages for the next 27.1 years of her life.

Denver moved to dismiss the lawsuit under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which broadly shields public entities and employees from lawsuits. There are exceptions, including if there is a dangerous condition in a public building. Among other things, the hazard must be caused through negligence in “constructing or maintaining the facility.”

Denver submitted a statement from Sarah Marquez, the senior vice president of airport operations, stating the TSA, not Denver, “is solely responsible for operating, controlling, supervising, monitoring and maintaining the Security Screening Checkpoint Areas.” She added Denver “did not and does not supply floor mats to TSA.”

Guardado’s attorney countered with a statement of his own, pointing out DIA has publicly described working “closely with TSA to create a plan to improve passenger flow through security.”

In September, U.S. District Court Senior Judge John L. Kane dismissed the lawsuit, finding Denver was entitled to governmental immunity. He deemed Marquez’s statement “relevant and persuasive” in ruling out Denver’s involvement with the offending floor mat.

It is “not enough that Ms. Guardado challenge the credibility of Ms. Marquez; she must show that Denver, the public entity in charge of maintaining DIA, made or had to make decisions regarding floor mats, the selection and placement of which caused Ms. Guardado’s injuries,” Kane wrote. “Ms. Guardado points to no regulatory or statutory language that illustrates why DIA therefore would have any role as to how and which floor mats were placed inside (TSA) areas.”

Guardado appealed to the 10th Circuit, arguing Denver alone had the obligation to maintain the floors in its airport, regardless of who was responsible for the mat.

“DIA owed a nondelegable duty to their 69-million annual, fee-paying, business invitee travelers, including Guardado, to inspect and maintain their airport terrazzo tile floor surface in a reasonably safe condition and remedy any sudden, imperceptible, concealed, raised, gait-altering tripping hazard,” wrote attorney David Peter Cwiklo. “DIA cannot delegate this duty to third-party TSA.”

But the 10th Circuit panel decided that Denver’s status as the airport’s landlord was not enough to render the city liable.

Guardado “bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the floor mats that caused her injury were a physical condition attributed to Denver’s maintenance of DIA. She has not carried this burden,” wrote Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich in the June 18 order.

The case is Guardado v. City and County of Denver.