nature or the outdoors." It was reasonably believed that the “catchall” provision of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 75.001(3) (L), which amended the code in 1997, “was not intended simply to incorporate all other outdoor activities into the statute” (Arlington v. Williams, 459 S.W.3d 48 (2015). Decision: Affirmed. The judgement rendered by the court answered the recreational use statue and negligence questions as it pertained to the actions being taken at the time of the fall and injuries sustained by Sandra Williams. It confirmed and concurred with the courts judgement as to the Williams’ recreational use and gross negligence claims for two reasons, the recreational use statute does not apply to the activity in this case while attempting to acquire and sign forms and University of Texas Arlington's immunity for a gross negligence claim has not been clearly and unambiguously waived. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision and no further proceedings are necessary. Comment: I concur with the courts decisions to uphold the findings. I think that the list that defines non- exclusive activities deemed as recreational within the statue mentioned should certainly be refine to positively include or not the competitive sports and their spectators.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read both pages?