OPINION
Opinion by:
This is аn accelerated appeal from the trial court’s denial of the City of San Antonio’s plea to the jurisdiction. We reverse the trial court’s order and render a dis *846 missal of appellees’ claims against the City.
DISCUSSION
Arnold Vasquez, Mark Unger, and Kim Frame were all injured, on different dates, while riding their bicycles on a bridge along the Mission Trails Phase 1 Bicycle Pаth. 1 Arnold and his wife, Mark, and Kim and her husband all filed suit against multiple defendants, including the City of San Antonio. The plaintiffs, who are all appel-lees in this appeаl, alleged the City possessed the property in question and either owned, controlled, occupied, or maintained the premises located at Mission Trails Phase 1 Bicycle Path as a public bike path. The plaintiffs alleged the City owed a duty to provide safe surroundings to those peoplе invited to the premises to conduct business; the City breached this duty by failing to warn or make the dangerous condition safe for invited persons; and the City breaсhed its duty to inspect the premises to discover defects on the bridge, along with construction defects caused by contractors and subcontraсtors. The City filed its plea to the jurisdiction arguing it was entitled to the protections provided by the Recreational Use Statute. The trial court denied thе plea and this appeal ensued.
ANALYSIS
Under the Recreational Use Statute, if the City “gives permission to another to enter the premises for reсreation,” the City “does not: (1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose; (2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted a greаter degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or (3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or propеrty caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & RemlCode Ann. § 75.002(c) (West Supp.2010). The statute defines “premises” to include “land, rоads, water, watercourse, private ways, and buildings, structures, machinery, and equipment attached to or located on the land, road, water, watercourse, or private way.” Id. § 75.001(2). “Recreation” is defined to include “an activity such as ... bicycling.” Id. § 75.001(3)(M). However, under subsection (c), the statute “shall not limit the liability of an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property who has been grossly negligent or has acted with malicious intent or in bad faith.” Id. § 75.002(d).
Thus, the Reсreational Use Statute, when applicable, “raises the burden of proof [in a premises liability case] by classifying the recreational user of [government]-owned property as a trespasser and requiring proof of gross negligence, malicious intent, or bad faith” on the part of the governmental unit.
State v. Shumake,
Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law.
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,
When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged fаcts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. Id. Whether a plaintiff has alleged such facts is a question of law reviеwed de novo. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstratе the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. Id. We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and look to their intent. Id. If the pleadings do not сontain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to amend. Id. at 226-27. If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. Id.
The plaintiffs’ allegations against the City arе contained in a section entitled “Liability of [the City] Under General Negligence Theory.” (emphasis added). In their fifth amended petition, the plaintiffs alleged the City possessed the рroperty in question and either owned, controlled, occupied, or maintained the premises located at Mission Trails Phase 1 Bicycle Path as a public bike path. The plaintiffs also alleged the bike path near Espada Dam is listed on the “recommended bicycle trails of Bexar County” and “is open to the public, and the public is encouraged to use the facility.” The petition alleges Arnold, Mark, and Kim as invitees were injured on different dates, but all in the same manner: they fell from their bikes when the front tire of the bike fell into a long groove that was left open and unprotected by a county road repair employee while creating an expansion joint on the bridge over the dam. The petition alleges the City “had knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to instruct the contractor to perfect the dangerous area for access by the public.” The petitiоn also alleges the long groove was not visible to the cyclists and there were no warning signs left by the road repair employees.
In order to estаblish jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had to allege that their injuries were the result of the City’s gross negligence, malicious intent, or bad faith. Our review of their petition reveals no such allegation. We conclude the plaintiffs did not, even when we read their petition liberally, meet their burden to assert any *848 claim, or allege any fact, affirmatively establishing the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They did not seek leave to amend their petition and alleged no facts in the record that could establish jurisdiction with respect to their claims of general negligence. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the рlea to the jurisdiction and render judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against the City.
Notes
. The Mission Trail stretches nine miles along the San Antonio River, with The Alamo being the northernmost of the missions. Visitors may drive the entire San Antonio Mission Trail or travel along a hike-and-bike trail.