Skip to content

Legal advertising service. Not a law firm or a lawyer referral service.

InjuryClaimGuide
For firms
Back to Learning Center
Texas Law Reference

Texas premises liability basics: government property (§101.022), recreational use (CPRC ch. 75) and contractors (CPRC ch. 95)

The official text of three Texas statutes on injuries on someone else's property, and how the Supreme Court of Texas describes a property owner's duty, with a plain-language explanation. Text last checked October 27, 2026.

12 min readPublished October 27, 2026Last updated October 27, 2026Edited by Joseph Budzinski, CTO, InjuryClaimGuide

The short answer

The duty a Texas landowner owes to an invitee is described in decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas, which has written that "A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe for invitees" (Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P.). Other categories of visitors, such as licensees and trespassers, are owed different duties. Three statutes set rules for particular settings. When a claim arises from a premise defect on government property, the governmental unit owes only the duty a private person owes to a licensee, unless the claimant pays for the use of the premises (CPRC §101.022). Where chapter 75 applies (CPRC §75.003), an owner who gives permission to enter for recreation does not, by giving the permission, owe a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser, and that limit does not apply to an owner who has been grossly negligent or has acted with malicious intent or in bad faith (CPRC §75.002). And an owner of real property primarily used for commercial or business purposes is not liable for personal injury, death or property damage to a contractor, a subcontractor or their employee who constructs, repairs, renovates or modifies an improvement to the property, unless both conditions in CPRC §95.003 are met. An attorney can tell you how these rules apply to a specific situation.

This entry provides general informational guidance and is not legal advice.

Key facts (as of 2026-10-27)

  • The duty to invitees comes from the courts. The Supreme Court of Texas has described a landowner's duty as "a duty to make safe or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not" (Austin, No. 14-0216).
  • Government property: the licensee duty. For a premise defect, a governmental unit owes only the duty a private person owes to a licensee, unless the claimant pays for the use of the premises (§101.022(a)).
  • Special defects on roads are treated differently. The limit does not apply to the duty to warn of special defects such as excavations or obstructions on highways, roads or streets (§101.022(b)).
  • Recreation: the trespasser standard. Where chapter 75 applies, an owner who gives permission to enter for recreation does not, by giving the permission, owe a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser; the limit does not apply to gross negligence, malicious intent or bad faith (§75.002(c), (d), §75.003(c)).
  • Contractors on commercial property: two conditions. Control over the manner of the work, and actual knowledge of the danger with a failure to adequately warn (§95.003).
  • Dates. §101.022 was last amended in 2005, §75.002 in 2007 and §75.003 in 2015; chapter 95 is unamended since it was added in 1995, according to the history lines.

How does the Supreme Court of Texas describe a landowner's duty?

In Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., the Supreme Court of Texas wrote:

A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe for invitees.

And on the general rule:

Applying the general rule, the Court has repeatedly described a landowner's duty as a duty to make safe or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not.

The court went on to say that "a landowner generally has no duty to warn of hazards that are open and obvious or known to the invitee", and it described two exceptions:

The first exception may arise when a dangerous condition results from the foreseeable criminal activity of third parties.

The second exception may arise when the invitee necessarily must use the unreasonably dangerous premises, and despite the invitee's awareness and appreciation of the dangers, the invitee is incapable of taking precautions that will adequately reduce the risk.

Source: Supreme Court of Texas, Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 14-0216, opinion by Justice Boyd, delivered June 12, 2015. Read October 27, 2026. The case answered a question from a federal appeals court about an employee injured at work, and the court said it was considering "the premises-liability duties of landowners to invitees generally."

In plain language:

  • Different categories, different standards. The court's words above are about invitees. §101.022 ties a governmental unit's duty to the one owed to a licensee, and chapter 75 ties the duty in recreation cases to the one owed to a trespasser.
  • Warning or fixing. On the general rule, the court wrote that "Ordinarily, the landowner need not do both, and can satisfy its duty by providing an adequate warning even if the unreasonably dangerous condition remains."
  • Obvious or known hazards. In the court's words, a landowner "generally has no duty to warn of hazards that are open and obvious or known to the invitee", and the court described the two exceptions quoted above.
  • Shared responsibility. In the exception cases, the court said that the obviousness of the danger and the invitee's appreciation of it "may be relevant to a landowner's defense based on the invitee's proportionate responsibility". Texas's proportionate responsibility rules are in the §33.001 entry.

What does §101.022 say about government property?

The official text of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.022, as published by the Texas Legislature:

Sec. 101.022. DUTY OWED: PREMISE AND SPECIAL DEFECTS. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (c), if a claim arises from a premise defect, the governmental unit owes to the claimant only the duty that a private person owes to a licensee on private property, unless the claimant pays for the use of the premises.

(b) The limitation of duty in this section does not apply to the duty to warn of special defects such as excavations or obstructions on highways, roads, or streets or to the duty to warn of the absence, condition, or malfunction of traffic signs, signals, or warning devices as is required by Section 101.060.

(c) If a claim arises from a premise defect on a toll highway, road, or street, the governmental unit owes to the claimant only the duty that a private person owes to a licensee on private property.

Source: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.022, statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Text last checked October 27, 2026.

§101.022 works with §101.021(2), which makes a governmental unit liable for "personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law."

In Sampson v. University of Texas at Austin, a case about a fall over an extension cord on a university campus, the Supreme Court of Texas described the licensee duty:

The duty owed to a licensee on private property requires that "a landowner not injure a licensee by willful, wanton or grossly negligent conduct, and that the owner use ordinary care either to warn a licensee of, or to make reasonably safe, a dangerous condition of which the owner is aware and the licensee is not."

And on how such a claim is analyzed:

Therefore, if a claim is one for a premises defect, it must be analyzed under section 101.022 and not as a claim for a condition or use of tangible property under section 101.021(2).

Source: Supreme Court of Texas, Sampson v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14-0745, opinion by Justice Green, delivered June 10, 2016. Read October 27, 2026. The first passage quotes an earlier decision of the court. Both passages are from the part of the opinion that all nine justices joined.

In plain language:

  • The licensee duty. For a premise defect on government property, the statute ties the duty to the one owed to a licensee. The words the court quoted for the licensee duty refer to "a dangerous condition of which the owner is aware and the licensee is not"; the invitee duty quoted from Austin refers to conditions "of which the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not". How courts apply either duty to particular facts is not covered here.
  • Paying changes the rule. The licensee limit in subsection (a) does not apply when the claimant pays for the use of the premises. Subsection (c) applies the licensee duty on a toll highway, road or street.
  • Special defects on roads. The duty to warn of special defects such as excavations or obstructions on roads, and of missing or malfunctioning traffic signs and signals as §101.060 requires, is outside the limit.
  • The Act's other rules still apply. The Tort Claims Act's notice requirement and limits on liability are covered in the Tort Claims Act entry.

What does chapter 75 say about recreational use?

The official text of §75.002(c), (d) and (f):

(c) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property other than agricultural land gives permission to another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not: (1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose; (2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted a greater 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 property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted.

(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) 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.

(f) Notwithstanding Subsections (b) and (c), if a person enters premises owned, operated, or maintained by a governmental unit and engages in recreation on those premises, the governmental unit does not owe to the person a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises.

Source: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §75.002. Subsections (a) and (b) set related rules for agricultural land: (a) for trespassers, and (b) for people given permission or invited to enter for recreation.

In plain language:

  • What counts as recreation. §75.001(3) lists activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, bicycling, nature study and "any other activity associated with enjoying nature or the outdoors" (§75.001). §75.002(e) adds activities such as skating and skateboarding, but only on premises a governmental unit owns, operates or maintains for those activities.
  • Government parks and land. Under §75.002(f), a governmental unit does not owe a person engaged in recreation on its premises a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser. When chapter 75 limits a governmental unit's liability in circumstances where it would be liable under chapter 101, chapter 75 controls (§75.003(g)).
  • Who is covered. Except for a governmental unit, the chapter applies only to an owner, lessee or occupant who does not charge for entry, whose total charges for recreational use in the previous calendar year were not more than 20 times the ad valorem taxes on the premises for that year, or who carries the liability insurance described in §75.004 (§75.003(c)).
  • Deliberate harm is not covered. The chapter does not relieve an owner, lessee or occupant of liability for deliberate, wilful or malicious injury (§75.003(a)).
  • Monetary limits for some agricultural land. §75.004 limits the liability of an owner, lessee or occupant of agricultural land used for recreational purposes who carries the required liability insurance, per person and per single occurrence. The amounts are in the official text of §75.004, and the section does not apply to a governmental unit.

What does chapter 75 say about trespassers?

The official text of §75.007(a) and (b):

(a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

(b) An owner, lessee, or occupant of land does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land and is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except that an owner, lessee, or occupant owes a duty to refrain from injuring a trespasser wilfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence.

Source: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §75.007. Subsection (c) sets out five conditions under which an owner, lessee or occupant may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land.

What does chapter 95 say about contractors?

The official text of §95.003:

Sec. 95.003. LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. A property owner is not liable for personal injury, death, or property damage to a contractor, subcontractor, or an employee of a contractor or subcontractor who constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies an improvement to real property, including personal injury, death, or property damage arising from the failure to provide a safe workplace unless: (1) the property owner exercises or retains some control over the manner in which the work is performed, other than the right to order the work to start or stop or to inspect progress or receive reports; and (2) the property owner had actual knowledge of the danger or condition resulting in the personal injury, death, or property damage and failed to adequately warn.

Source: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §95.003.

In plain language:

  • Commercial property only. In chapter 95, "property owner" means "a person or entity that owns real property primarily used for commercial or business purposes" (§95.001(3)).
  • Construction and repair work. The chapter applies only to a claim against a property owner, contractor or subcontractor for injury, death or property damage to an owner, a contractor, a subcontractor or their employee that arises from the condition or use of an improvement to real property where the contractor or subcontractor constructs, repairs, renovates or modifies the improvement (§95.002).
  • Both conditions. The two conditions in §95.003 are joined by "and", so the statute's exception requires both control over the manner of the work and actual knowledge with a failure to adequately warn.
  • Limited to the listed claims. By §95.002, the chapter applies only to the claims it lists. An injury to anyone else on the property is outside its terms.

When was this checked, and can it change?

The statute text above was last checked on October 27, 2026, against the official text published by the Texas Legislature, and the two opinions were read on the same day on the Supreme Court of Texas's websites. The Legislature can amend a statute in any session, and courts can refine how a rule is applied. The Legislature convenes in regular session on the second Tuesday in January of each odd-numbered year (Gov't Code §301.001), so the next regular session begins on January 12, 2027. This entry is scheduled to be rechecked against the official text by April 2027 and again after the 2027 regular session ends.

Related guides

About InjuryClaimGuide

InjuryClaimGuide is a legal advertising service. We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. We do not recommend or endorse any attorney, and we do not analyze the merits of any potential claim. Routing to participating firms is based on geography, practice area, language, and firm capacity.

Frequently asked questions

How does the Supreme Court of Texas describe a property owner's duty to an invitee?
In Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P. (No. 14-0216, 2015), the court wrote that "A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe for invitees." It also wrote that "the Court has repeatedly described a landowner's duty as a duty to make safe or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not." Other categories of visitors, such as licensees and trespassers, are owed different duties.
What duty does a Texas governmental unit owe for a premise defect?
Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.022(a), except as provided in subsection (c), if a claim arises from a premise defect, the governmental unit owes to the claimant only the duty that a private person owes to a licensee on private property, unless the claimant pays for the use of the premises. Under §101.022(b), that limitation does not apply to the duty to warn of special defects such as excavations or obstructions on highways, roads, or streets, or to the duty to warn of the absence, condition, or malfunction of traffic signs, signals, or warning devices as required by §101.060.
What does the Texas recreational use statute say?
Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §75.002(c), an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property other than agricultural land who gives permission to another to enter the premises for recreation does not, by giving the permission, assure that the premises are safe for that purpose or owe that person a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser. Under §75.002(d), these limits do not apply to an owner, lessee, or occupant who has been grossly negligent or has acted with malicious intent or in bad faith. Under §75.003(c), except for a governmental unit, chapter 75 applies only to an owner, lessee, or occupant who meets one of the conditions that subsection lists about charging for entry or carrying liability insurance.
When is a commercial property owner liable for an injury to a contractor's employee under chapter 95?
Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §95.003, a property owner is not liable for personal injury, death, or property damage to a contractor, subcontractor, or an employee of either who constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies an improvement to real property unless the owner exercises or retains some control over the manner in which the work is performed, other than the right to order the work to start or stop or to inspect progress or receive reports, and the owner had actual knowledge of the danger or condition and failed to adequately warn.
Can InjuryClaimGuide tell me whether a property owner is responsible for my injury?
No. InjuryClaimGuide is a legal advertising service. We do not apply the law to anyone's situation and do not evaluate any claim. An attorney can advise you about your specific situation.

Sources

Ready to talk about your situation?

A free intake is about two minutes. No obligation. You decide if you want to be connected with anyone.

Start free intake

More guides

Start Free IntakeAbout 2 minutes. Free to you.

Start