ground-which is apparently what happened here. IIL Public Facility T9 Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the apparatus is not a "public facility" under section 24-10-106(1)(e). We agree. A. Standard of Review 110 Normally, immunity determinations raised pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) are reviewed under the clear error standard as they are essentially factual. See Corsentino v. Cordova, 4 P.3d 1082, 1087 (Colo.2000); Ramos v. City of Pueblo, 28 P.3d 979, 980 (Colo.App.2001). In this case, however, we review the trial court's ruling de novo because it presents an issue of statutory construction. Bostelman v. People, 162 P.3d 686, 689 (Colo.2007) (stating that statutory interpretation is a question of law which is reviewed de novo), Corsentino, 4 P.3d at 1087 (<HOLDING>). 111 Because it is in abrogation of the common
holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo holding that the district courts findings of fact when ruling on a 12b1 motion are reviewed for clear error holding that the trial courts immunity determination pursuant to crcp 12b1 is reviewed de novo when the courts ruling involves statutory interpretation holding that legal issues presented by rule 12b1 motion are reviewed de novo holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review