The Court's decision in Davis v. City of Philadelphia, 987 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), determined that the Township was immune from liability under the RULWA because "there is no evidence of any improvement in the area that Plaintiff fell. The fall occurred in an unimproved, grass and dirt area." In Davis, the Court held that a field located in Fairmont Park was not a highly developed recreational area as to fall outside of the immunity provided in the RULWA. In Davis, the appellant engaged in a flag football game on a field when he tripped in a depression in the field that was about four and one half inches deep. The park itself is highly developed with "numerous improvements" such as "roads, museums, and statuary." Id., 987 A.2d at 1277. However, this Court disagreed with looking at the overall park, rather than the site of the injury, in considering whether the RULWA is applicable. Relying on Bashioum, the Court held that the focus should be on the field, which is not a highly developed recreational area. The Court described the field as "an open, grassy area bordered by a few trees; the only maintenance conducted on the field is that it is mowed 'once every two weeks ... between April and October; and the primary purpose of the field is as 'overflow parking ... for the Philadelphia Zoo,' although individuals do sometimes play sports on the field." Id. at 1278. There was no evidence presented in Davis to show that the field had been altered from its original state. As such, our Court held that because "there is no evidence of any improvement on the field, it is the sort of unimproved property to which the RULWA applies." Id.