Texas House Bill HB258

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to liability of certain public utilities that allow certain uses of land that the public utility owns, occupies, or leases.

Impact

This bill substantially alters the liability landscape for public utilities operating in regions with large populations, particularly counties with over four million residents. By limiting liability, the act encourages utilities to facilitate public access to their lands, promoting recreational opportunities while reducing undue burdens related to potential lawsuits. However, it also raises concerns about the safety of individuals using these areas, as the utilities declare no responsibility for incidents occurring during such recreational activities.

Summary

House Bill 258 seeks to amend the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, specifically focusing on the liability of certain public utilities in Texas regarding the land they own, occupy, or lease. The bill allows public utilities to enter into agreements with political subdivisions or nonprofit organizations, permitting public access to these lands for recreational or educational purposes. The legislation stipulates that utilities are not responsible for ensuring safety on these premises and outlines specific insurance requirements that political subdivisions and nonprofits must satisfy when entering these agreements.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 258 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that it promotes beneficial public access to utility lands without exposing the utilities to excessive liability. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of recreational spaces and educational opportunities in urban areas. Conversely, opponents express concern over the potential risks involved with public use of utility properties, fearing that limitations on liability could result in unsafe conditions and reduced accountability for the utilities involved.

Contention

Notably, the contention lies in balancing public accessibility and safety with the liabilities borne by utility companies. Critics argue that while the bill aims to facilitate outdoor activities and education, it simultaneously diminishes the protections for the public. The discussion may highlight broader debates over the responsibilities and obligations of public utilities towards community safety, especially as they manage lands intended for public enjoyment.