University of Texas at Arlington v. Sandra Williams and Steve Williams

Summary

Justice Johnson, joined by Justice Brown, concurs in the judgment concerning the gross negligence claim but dissents regarding the ordinary negligence claim. The opinion addresses whether Texas’s recreational use statute encompasses a parent’s attendance at and activities associated with a child’s outdoor soccer game, and whether the interaction between that statute and the Texas Tort Claims Act clearly waives the University’s immunity. Justice Johnson would reverse the court of appeals as to ordinary negligence while affirming its remand of the gross negligence claim.

Holdings

1. In Justice Johnson's view, the recreational-use statute's broad, nonexclusive language encompasses a parent who attends a child's outdoor soccer game, spectates, and performs related activities such as signing the child in or out. Competitive or team sports, spectatorship, and improvements to the land do not categorically remove an activity from the statute.
2. Justice Johnson would hold that the recreational-use statute applies to the Williamses' ordinary-negligence claim and that the interaction between the recreational-use statute and the Tort Claims Act requires reversal of the court of appeals' judgment as to that claim because UTA's immunity for the claim was not clearly and unambiguously waived.
3. Justice Johnson agreed with the court of appeals' analysis and holding regarding the gross-negligence claim and joined the Court's judgment affirming the remand of that claim to the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether attending, spectating at, and assisting a child with an outdoor competitive sporting activity constitutes recreation under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 75.001(3), including subsection 75.001(3)(L).
2. Whether the recreational-use statute applies to the Williamses' ordinary-negligence claim against the University of Texas at Arlington.
3. Whether the interaction between the recreational-use statute and the Texas Tort Claims Act requires rejection of the ordinary-negligence claim because governmental immunity was not clearly and unambiguously waived.
4. Whether the court of appeals' treatment of the gross-negligence claim should be affirmed.

Disposition

other