Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

City of Lubbock v. Rule – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In City of Lubbock v. Rule, 68 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2002, no pet.), a small child suffered burns when she attempted to climb on a slide in a city park.

It was alleged that the protective coating on the slide had deteriorated, creating an unreasonably dangerous condition of which the city had actual knowledge. Rule, 68 S.W.3d at 858.

Once again, the court found the recreational statute required the city only to refrain from injuring the visitor through willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct. Id. at 859.

The Amarillo court attached great significance to the word "conduct" and emphasized that a duty does not encompass injury arising from the condition of realty, but only injury arising from the activity or conduct of the occupier. Id.

In sum, a child suffered burns from a slide in a park when she attempted to climb the slide. Rule, 68 S.W.3d at 858.

The Rule court held she was engaged in recreation when she suffered injury after she touched a slide that had become hot because a protective covering had worn off the slide; the court ruled that being on a slide in the park was closely related to activities one engaged in at a playground or park. Id.

In Rule, the court held that the injured party had engaged in an unenumerated activity that was within the ambit of "activity associated with enjoying nature or the outdoors".Rule, 68 S.W.3d at 858; Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 75.001(3)(L).