Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002 – Liability Limited (Landowner Limited Duty for Recreational Use)

Table of Contents

• Code Details
• Exact Statute Text
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002 Summary
• Purpose of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002
• Real-World Example of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002
• Related Statutes
• Case Law Interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002
• Why Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Code Details

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 75. LIMITATION OF LANDOWNERS’ LIABILITY

Exact Statute Text

Click to view the complete statute text

LIABILITY LIMITED. (a) An owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land:

(1) does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land; and

(2) is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except for wilful or wanton acts or gross negligence by the owner, lessee, or other occupant of agricultural land.

(b) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land gives permission to another or invites another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not:

(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose;

(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is extended a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or

(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is extended.

(c) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property other than agricultural land gives permission to another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not:

(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose;

(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or

(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted.

(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not limit the liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who has been grossly negligent or has acted with malicious intent or in bad faith.

(e) In this section, “recreation” means, in addition to its meaning under Section 75.001, the following activities only if the activities take place on premises owned, operated, or maintained by a governmental unit for the purposes of those activities:

(1) hockey and in-line hockey;

(2) skating, in-line skating, roller-skating, skateboarding, and roller-blading;

(3) soap box derby use; and

(4) paintball use.

(f) Notwithstanding Subsections (b) and (c), if a person enters premises owned, operated, or maintained by a governmental unit and engages in recreation on those premises, the governmental unit does not owe to the person a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises.

(g) Any premises a governmental unit owns, operates, or maintains and on which the recreational activities described in Subsections (e)(1)-(4) are conducted shall post and maintain a clearly readable sign in a clearly visible location on or near the premises. The sign shall contain the following warning language:

WARNING

TEXAS LAW (CHAPTER 75, CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE) LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT FOR DAMAGES ARISING DIRECTLY FROM HOCKEY, IN-LINE HOCKEY, SKATING, IN-LINE SKATING, ROLLER-SKATING, SKATEBOARDING, ROLLER-BLADING, PAINTBALL USE, OR SOAP BOX DERBY USE ON PREMISES THAT THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT OWNS, OPERATES, OR MAINTAINS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

(h) An owner, lessee, or occupant of real property in this state is liable for trespass as a result of migration or transport of any air contaminant, as defined in Section 382.003(2), Health and Safety Code, other than odor, only upon a showing of actual and substantial damages by a plaintiff in a civil action.

(i) Subsections (b) and (c) do not affect any liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property for an injury occurring outside the boundaries of the real property caused by an activity described by Section 75.001(3)(P) that originates within the boundaries of the real property.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 56, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 734, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 204, Sec. 21.01, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 116 (S.B. 1224), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 932 (H.B. 616), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 227 (H.B. 1560), Sec. 1, eff. May 25, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 659 (H.B. 1183), Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007.

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002 Summary

This Texas statute, Section 75.002 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, generally limits the legal responsibility of landowners, lessees, and occupants for injuries that occur on their property, particularly when the injury involves trespassers or individuals invited or permitted to enter for recreational purposes.

For agricultural land, the property owner or occupant owes no general duty of care to a trespasser and is not liable for their injuries, unless the owner’s actions were willful, wanton, or grossly negligent. If a landowner on agricultural property invites or permits someone to enter for recreation, the law states that merely giving permission does not guarantee the premises are safe, nor does it create a higher duty of care than what is owed to a trespasser. Furthermore, the landowner isn’t responsible for injuries caused by the recreational user’s own actions.

These same limitations on liability apply to owners of other types of real property (non-agricultural) who grant permission for recreational use. However, these liability limitations do not apply if the property owner, lessee, or occupant acted with gross negligence, malicious intent, or in bad faith.

The statute specifically defines “recreation” to include certain activities like hockey, skating, skateboarding, paintball, and soap box derby use, but only when these occur on premises owned or operated by a governmental entity for those specific purposes. For these governmental entities, the duty of care for recreational users is also limited to that owed to a trespasser, and they are required to post warning signs detailing this limited liability.

Finally, the statute addresses specific situations concerning air contaminants causing trespass (requiring actual and substantial damages for liability) and clarifies that the recreational liability limits don’t apply to certain off-premises injuries caused by activities originating on the property.

Purpose of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002

The legislative intent behind this section is to encourage landowners in Texas to open their properties for public recreational use by reducing the potential legal risks they face. Without such protections, many landowners might be hesitant to allow others onto their land for activities like hiking, hunting, fishing, or other forms of recreation, fearing lawsuits if someone gets hurt. By limiting a landowner’s duty of care to recreational users to that owed to a trespasser (a very low standard), the statute aims to foster greater public access to private and public lands for outdoor activities.

This law strikes a balance: it protects property owners from most negligence claims when they graciously allow access, while still holding them accountable for more egregious conduct, such as gross negligence or malicious actions. It also extends similar protections to governmental units providing recreational facilities, ensuring they can offer amenities like skate parks or hockey rinks without facing overwhelming liability, provided they post appropriate warnings. This encourages the provision of public recreational spaces and benefits the community by making more areas available for leisure and outdoor pursuits.

Real-World Example of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002

Imagine the Smith family owns a large ranch, which is considered agricultural land in Texas. They occasionally allow a local scouting troop to use a remote part of their property for an overnight camping trip and nature hike. During one such trip, a scout, while running excitedly down a path, trips over an exposed tree root and breaks their arm. The scout’s parents consider suing the Smith family for their child’s injury.

Under Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002(b), because the Smiths gave permission for recreation on their agricultural land, they do not owe the scout a greater degree of care than they would owe to a trespasser. This means they are not expected to assure the premises are absolutely safe for that purpose. For the scout’s parents to successfully sue the Smiths, they would generally need to prove that the Smiths acted with gross negligence, malicious intent, or in bad faith (as per subsection (d)). Simply having an exposed tree root, a common natural occurrence in such an environment, would likely not meet this high legal standard. If the Smiths knew about a concealed, dangerous pit they had dug and intentionally failed to warn the scouts about it, that might qualify as gross negligence or malicious intent, but a natural obstacle like a tree root typically would not. This statute thus protects the Smith family from ordinary negligence claims, encouraging them to continue allowing community groups to use their land.

Related Statutes

Several other sections of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, particularly within Chapter 75, are closely associated with § 75.002. These statutes provide context, definitions, and further limitations on landowner liability.

• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.001: This section provides essential definitions for terms used throughout Chapter 75, including “agricultural land,” “owner, lessee, or occupant,” and a comprehensive list of what constitutes “recreation.” Section 75.002 explicitly references Section 75.001 for its definition of “recreation” in subsection (e) and for specific activities in subsection (i), making it crucial for understanding the scope of liability limitations.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.003: This statute outlines the “Effect of Charging Admission” for recreational use. It states that the liability limitations provided in § 75.002 generally do not apply if an owner, lessee, or occupant charges a fee for entry onto the premises for recreational purposes, unless the total charges for the preceding calendar year were less than 20 times the total amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on the premises for that year. This is a critical distinction because charging a substantial fee significantly alters the landowner’s duty of care.
• Health and Safety Code § 382.003(2): While not in the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, this statute is directly referenced in § 75.002(h). It defines “air contaminant,” which is relevant for understanding the specific conditions under which a landowner might be liable for trespass due to air pollution migration, requiring actual and substantial damages.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002

Texas courts have frequently interpreted and applied Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002, particularly in cases involving injuries on recreational properties or governmental land. The core focus of these cases often revolves around determining the landowner’s status (e.g., agricultural land, governmental unit), the injured party’s status (e.g., trespasser, invitee for recreation), and whether the landowner’s conduct reached the high bar of gross negligence, malicious intent, or bad faith necessary to overcome the statutory liability limits.

• One relevant case is *University of Texas at Austin v. Hayes*, 327 S.W.3d 108 (Tex. 2010), where the Texas Supreme Court discussed the application of the Recreational Use Statute (Chapter 75) in the context of a student injured on university property. While primarily focused on other sections, its discussion of the legislative intent and the “trespasser” duty of care is directly applicable to the principles found in § 75.002. You can find search results for this case by clicking here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=University+of+Texas+at+Austin+v.+Hayes+327+S.W.3d+108
• Another key case is *City of Houston v. Shilling*, 889 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. 1994), which examined the governmental unit’s liability under the recreational use statute for an injury in a city park. This case provides important guidance on how the “trespasser” duty of care applies to municipalities and the specific activities covered. You can find search results for this case by clicking here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=City+of+Houston+v.+Shilling+889+S.W.2d+253
• Additionally, cases like *JBS Artichokes, Inc. v. Garcia*, 970 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, writ denied), while not solely focused on § 75.002, help define what constitutes “gross negligence” in a landowner liability context, which is the key exception to the limited liability provisions of this statute. You can find search results for this case by clicking here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=JBS+Artichokes%2C+Inc.+v.+Garcia+970+S.W.2d+625

These cases illustrate that while the statute provides broad protection, the specific facts of each situation, particularly concerning the landowner’s knowledge and actions, are critical in determining whether the high bar for liability is met.

Why Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002 plays a pivotal role in Texas personal injury litigation, particularly in cases involving premises liability, outdoor recreation, and injuries on private or governmental land. For both clients and attorneys, understanding this statute is crucial because it significantly alters the standard of care a landowner owes, making it much more difficult for an injured party to recover damages in many scenarios.

For plaintiffs, this law means that if they were engaged in recreational activities on someone else’s property with permission (or were a trespasser on agricultural land), they face a heightened burden of proof. They cannot simply claim ordinary negligence; instead, they must demonstrate that the landowner acted with gross negligence, malicious intent, or in bad faith. This is a substantially higher legal hurdle, often requiring proof of a conscious indifference to the safety of others or an intentional wrongful act. This affects case valuation, as the likelihood of success is lower, and shapes the initial investigation to search for evidence of these specific, more egregious forms of conduct.

For defense attorneys representing landowners, § 75.002 is a powerful shield. It provides robust protection against liability for most accidents that occur during recreational use, allowing them to argue that their client met the limited duty of care required by law. The statute’s existence encourages landowners to permit recreational activities without the constant threat of litigation for minor incidents, fostering more opportunities for public engagement with private and public lands. Understanding the nuances of “agricultural land,” “recreation,” and the specific exceptions (like charging admission, as per § 75.003) is vital for mounting an effective defense.

Ultimately, this statute profoundly influences legal strategy, from the initial client consultation and evidence gathering to settlement negotiations and trial arguments. It highlights the importance of accurately assessing the property type, the nature of the activity, the injured party’s status, and the landowner’s conduct in every personal injury case related to recreational land use in Texas.