Lexplug logoLexplug

City of Dallas v. Patrick

Court of Appeals of Texas
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6426, 2011 WL 3558772, 347 S.W.3d 452 (2011)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, the Recreational Use Statute controls when applicable, limiting a governmental unit's duty of care to that owed to a trespasser for individuals injured while engaging in recreation on its premises, thereby preserving governmental immunity absent a showing of gross negligence.


Facts:

  • The City of Dallas owned and operated the Dallas Zoo, a governmental function.
  • On March 31, 2009, Maurya Patrick visited the Dallas Zoo with her mother and two grandchildren.
  • Patrick gained entry to the zoo using her mother's membership, meaning a fee was paid for her use of the premises.
  • Patrick stated her purpose for the visit was to have fun, let the children learn about the animals, and enjoy the outdoors.
  • While walking on a path between exhibits, Patrick tripped on a curb, fell, and sustained injuries.
  • The City of Dallas had no prior reports or complaints of anyone falling at the specific location where Patrick fell.
  • Patrick admitted that she is not a disabled person.

Procedural Posture:

  • Maurya Patrick sued the City of Dallas in a Texas state trial court for claims including premises liability and negligence.
  • The City of Dallas responded by filing a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity.
  • The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction.
  • The City of Dallas, as the appellant, brought an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas, challenging the trial court's denial.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Texas Recreational Use Statute apply to a paying visitor at a city-owned zoo who is there for educational and entertainment purposes, thereby limiting the city's duty of care to that owed a trespasser and preserving its governmental immunity for an injury caused by ordinary negligence?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice FitzGerald

Yes. The Texas Recreational Use Statute applies because visiting a zoo for entertainment and educational purposes qualifies as 'recreation,' which limits the city's duty of care to that owed a trespasser and preserves its immunity absent a showing of gross negligence. The Texas Tort Claims Act's waiver of immunity for premises liability is limited by the Recreational Use Statute (RUS). The RUS states that if a person is on governmental property for 'recreation,' the government entity only owes the duty not to injure through gross negligence, willful or wanton conduct. The court found that Patrick's stated purposes for visiting the zoo—having fun, learning about animals ('nature study'), and enjoying the outdoors—fall squarely within the statutory definition of recreation. Because the RUS applies, the City only waived immunity if its conduct constituted gross negligence, which requires subjective awareness of an extreme risk and conscious indifference. The City presented evidence that it had no awareness of any risk at the location, and Patrick failed to provide any contrary evidence to create a fact issue on gross negligence. Therefore, the City retained its governmental immunity.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the broad application of the Recreational Use Statute to government-operated facilities that have both recreational and educational purposes, like zoos. It significantly strengthens the protection of governmental immunity by clarifying that paying an entrance fee does not automatically elevate the duty of care if the activity is deemed recreational. The ruling raises the bar for plaintiffs injured at such facilities, requiring them to prove the high standard of gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence to overcome immunity. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult to bring successful premises liability claims against municipalities for injuries occurring in parks, zoos, and similar public venues in Texas.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query City of Dallas v. Patrick (2011) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for City of Dallas v. Patrick