the University of Texas at Austin v. April Garner, 595 S.W.3d 645

Background

The University of Texas at Austin owns Alvin, a road within a university apartment complex that bicyclists commonly use as a shortcut to Lady Bird Lake and nearby trails.
On April 14, 2015, April Garner was bicycling on Alvin toward a trailhead when a university employee, Angel Moreno, backing a university vehicle from a parking space, struck her; she suffered injuries.
Garner sued the University under the Tort Claims Act’s motor-vehicle waiver, alleging ordinary negligence by the employee.
The University moved to dismiss, arguing the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) classifies recreational users as trespassers on governmental property and limits duty to avoid injury except for gross negligence or worse.
The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review and held RUS subsection (f) applies, so the Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for Garner’s ordinary negligence claim.
Garner never alleged gross negligence, malicious intent, or bad faith; thus, once RUS applied, the University retained immunity and the courts lacked jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garner)	Defendant's Argument (University)	Held
Does the Recreational Use Statute apply to Garner’s injury on university-owned Alvin?	RUS does not apply because the University never "opened" Alvin for recreational use; Alvin is not recreational property.	RUS applies to governmental premises used for recreation, including Alvin when bicyclists use it.	RUS applies: Garner entered government-owned premises and engaged in recreation (bicycling).
Is bicycling on Alvin "recreation" under the statute?	Garner: her bicycling was a transportation shortcut, not recreational.	University: bicycling is statutorily defined as recreation regardless of subjective intent.	Held: bicycling qualifies as "recreation" under the statute; subjective intent is irrelevant.
Does subsection (f) require the governmental unit to have granted permission/invited recreational use?	Garner: RUS should be read to require the owner to open premises for recreational use; otherwise (f) would expand statute improperly.	University: subsection (f) contains no permission requirement; it applies when a person enters government-owned premises and engages in recreation.	Held: subsection (f) is plain and requires no permission; it controls notwithstanding subsections (b)–(c).
If RUS applies, does the Tort Claims Act still waive immunity for ordinary negligence?	Garner: Tort Claims Act waiver applies; RUS should not defeat the waiver here.	University: RUS limits the waiver by classifying recreational users as trespassers, so ordinary negligence claims are barred absent gross negligence.	Held: Because RUS applies and Garner alleged only ordinary negligence, the Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

Univ. of Tex. at Arlington v. Williams, 459 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2015) (RUS limits landowner liability for recreational users)
Suarez v. City of Texas City, 465 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2015) (RUS narrows Tort Claims Act waiver for governmental units)
Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (sovereign-immunity arguments may be raised on appeal)
Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (courts may not add words to statutes)
Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2008) (statutory interpretation should avoid rendering parts superfluous)
Stephen F. Austin State Univ. v. Flynn, 228 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2007) (RUS analysis and permission/opening requirements under subsection (c))
Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. 1995) (courts may not rewrite statutes on policy grounds)
City of Bellmead v. Torres, 89 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2002) (focus on activity at time of injury, not subjective reason for presence)
City of San Antonio v. Peralta, 476 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015) (bicycling held to be recreation despite commuter purpose)