Cynthia Walker, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Norman Walker Stephen Walker Stephanie Walker Hatton Jordan Walker And Caren Ann Johnson v. UME, Inc. D/B/A Camp Huaco Springs WWGAF, Inc. D/B/A Rockin 'R' River Rides William George Rivers And Richard Duane Rivers, 03-15-00271-CV

Background

In June 2010 a flash flood on the Guadalupe River swept away two adjacent RV "house trailers" at Camp Huaco Springs; Norman Walker drowned and other occupants were seriously injured.
Plaintiffs (Cynthia Walker on behalf of Norman's estate and others) sued Camp Huaco Springs/UME, Inc., WWGAF, Inc. (d/b/a Rockin’ R River Rides), and brothers William and Richard Rivers for premises/occupant liability, gross negligence, and related claims.
Plaintiffs' summary‑judgment evidence: the RV lots were paved, improved, assigned by park personnel, in a known flash‑flood prone location with prior floods; no warnings, no written safety materials, no 24‑hour onsite staff, and no active weather monitoring before the flood.
Defendants moved for traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants (partial order March 10, 2015; remaining defendants March 26, 2015) and later struck plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition, disposing of remaining claims.
Plaintiffs appeal the summary judgments arguing issues including duty/breach/causation, inapplicability of the Recreational Use Statute (CPRC Ch. 75), gross‑negligence sufficiency, and joint/occupant liability of the Rivers brothers and WWGAF.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants owed a duty to warn/protect visitors from flash floods	Appellants: defendants knew of prior, severe floods, assigned guests to paved lots in a hidden, flood‑prone area, controlled visitors, and therefore owed a duty to warn and make premises safe	Appellees: (as argued below) sought summary judgment that they had no actionable duty or were protected by recreational‑use statutory limitations	Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants (appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence to support summary judgment denial of plaintiffs’ claims)
Whether defendants breached duties (monitoring, warnings, staffing, warnings)	Appellants: defendants breached by taking no precautions—no weather monitoring, no warnings, no night staff, no posted notices—despite easy, low‑cost measures and known risk	Appellees: argued no liability as a matter of law (and relied on evidence that law enforcement allegedly warned campers)	Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; appellants argue record contains more than scintilla to submit breach to jury
Whether CPRC Chapter 75 (Recreational Use Statute) bars/reduces liability	Appellants: statute does not apply because the site is improved/paved, commercially operated (for‑profit campground/river outfitter), leased for human habitation, and sleeping in an RV is residential not recreational; alternatively, gross negligence claim survives	Appellees: relied on Chapter 75 defenses (and insurance/threshold provisions) to limit liability	Trial court granted summary judgment; appellants invoke Williams and Schumake to argue statute should not apply or gross‑negligence question remains for jury
Whether Rivers brothers and WWGAF are liable as occupants or joint‑venturers	Appellants: lease terms, shared operations, shared offices/marketing, insurance listings, and combined packages support occupancy or joint enterprise and thus liability for all entities and owners	Appellees: contended only UME (owner) was responsible for the RV park premises; WWGAF limited to river equipment rental	Trial court disposed of claims against multiple defendants on summary judgment; appellants assert evidence is sufficient to raise fact issues on occupancy and joint enterprise

Key Cases Cited

Boerjan v. Rodriguez, 436 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2014) (summary‑judgment standard and appellate review principles)
Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (standard that more than a scintilla of evidence defeats no‑evidence summary judgment)
City of Waco v. Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2009) (duty where landowner knows of hidden dangerous condition unknown to invitees)
Suarez v. City of Texas City, 465 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2015) (duty analysis where foreseeability/likelihood of harm outweigh burden of precautions)
State v. Schumake, 199 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. 2006) (gross‑negligence premises liability where operator knew of hidden peril and failed to warn)
Univ. of Tex. at Arlington v. Williams, 459 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2015) (construing Recreational Use Statute—statute limited in scope; focus on improved land and precise activity)
Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't, 8 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 1999) (occupier duty when controlling conduct of visitors)
Shell Oil Co. v. Khan, 138 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2004) (right‑to‑control/occupancy shown by lease terms)