University Of Texas At Arlington V. Sandra Williams And Steve Williams Case Brief

University Of Texas At Arlington V. Sandra Williams And Steve Williams Case Brief

Case Citation:            459 S.W.3d 48; 2015 Tex. LEXIS 268; 58 Tex. Sup. J. 514

Parties:                       Steve Williams and Sandra Williams (Plaintiffs)

The University of Texas at Arlington (Defendant)

Facts:

Sandra Williams and her husband, Steve Williams, sued the University of Texas at Arlington for compensation for Sandra’s injuries when she fell at Maverick Stadium, a University of Texas at Arlington facility. The Maverick stadium is a multipurpose facility with a 12,500-seat capacity. Sandra fell through the rails and hit the boundary guard that separates the playing field from the seat section. Earlier, her husband also fell five feet on the artificial turf below, resulting in limb injuries.

Procedural History:

Sandra and Steve Williams directed their initial suit at the trial court, claiming compensation for the injuries. The appellants argued that the university erred by locking the gate with just a chain and a faulty lock. Therefore, a failure to repair the gate despite past accidents amounted to total negligence. Also, Maverick stadium owners failed to warn occupants of the impending danger. Finally, the appellants asserted that Sandra was not engaged in any form of recreational activity that could potentially subject their claims to the recreational use statute.

In response, however, UTA filed a motion for dismissal. UTA (respondent) asserted that the sporting event was recreational, thus subject to the recreational statute claims standards (Dowell, 2016). The respondent also argued that they did not willfully or wantonly cause the accident, arguing that the appellants failed to lay their claim through the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) (Dowell, 2016). Finally, UTA argued that Steve Williams’ claim was a mere follow-up on his wife’s case since he did not give notice when he fell. Nonetheless, the trials court upheld the appellants’ claim, and the case proceeded to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Issue 1: Whether Sandra had engaged in a recreational activity by attending her daughter’s sporting event. The recreational statute protects government premises and private property owners from liability for any accidents within the property. Unless stated otherwise by the owner, the owner owes any person who enters the property a similar degree of care owned to trespassers-nothing more.

Issue 2: Whether the University of Texas at Arlington had prior knowledge about the dangerous condition of the gates.

Issue 3: Whether Steve Williamson provided the required six-month notice for his claim.

Holdings 

Issue 1: No. The court asserted that it was not one’s decision to enter a facility that determines whether the claim falls within the standards of the recreational statute; rather, it is what the person was doing at the time of the accident.

Issue 2: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence that UTA knew the risk.

Issue 3: Yes. Steve Williams won his consortium claim because UTA was aware of the incident event without notice. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.101 (a) provides that a government unit must receive notice of claim not later than six months after an accident (Texas government, n.d.). However, this is not necessary if the relevant unit knows.

Reasoning:

Issue 1:

Sandra’s injury happened as she waited to sign release forms for her daughter, a compulsory requirement by the Texas High School Athletics body. The signing of release forms does not fall under the recreational activities listed. It is illogical to argue that the injury happened during the game as it had already ended.

Issue 2:

UTA admitted that the padlocks used to close the gates tend to be faulty. Despite the admission, they did not replace them nor warn spectators. The court ruled that this amounts to gross negligence.

Issue 3:

In their judgment, the judges ruled that if UTA was on notice for Sandra’s injury and their mistake thereof, they were also aware of Steve William’s notice. That is so because Steve’s injury was based on Sandra’s. Therefore, UTA had sufficient time to investigate and settle Steve’s claim or challenge it at the trial court.

Decision:

The Supreme Court overruled UTA’s issues, thereby upholding the trial court’s order for compensation.

References

Dowell, T. (2016). LANDOWNER LIABILITY PROTECTIONS: Texas Recreational Use          Statute, Agritourism Act, And Farm Animal Liability Act.    https://28xeuf2otxva18q7lx1uemec-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-     content/uploads/2018/03/Landowner-Liability-Protections-TX-Rec-Use-Agritourism-        and-Farm-Animal-Liability-Acts.pdf

Texas government. (n.d.). Civil Practice And Remedies Code Title 1. General Provisions Chapter 1. General Provisions. Retrieved August 17, 2021, from             https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/SDocs/CIVILPRACTICEANDREMEDIESCODE.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Brief the case University of Texas at Arlington v. Williams, 459 S.W. 3d 48 (Tex. 2015), which is attached as “Williamscase.docx.”

Please use the approved case brief format that includes the following parts: (1) Facts, (2) Procedural History, (3) Issues Statements, (4) Holdings, (5) Reasoning, and (6) Decision.

University Of Texas At Arlington V. Sandra Williams And Steve Williams Case Brief

Case briefs are used to highlight the key information contained within a case for use within the legal community as court cases can be quite lengthy.
When writing case briefs, all information must be properly cited. Make sure you are not copying and pasting from your source. Most of the material should be paraphrased; quotations should make up no more than 10% of the brief. Note: since the purpose is to highlight and summarize key information, merely copying and pasting from the case does not accomplish this goal. You must summarize the facts in your own words, using quotations sparingly.

Please take a look at the three handouts that I have attached here. One handout outlines how to brief a case with a detailed explanation of each part of the case brief. Another handout outlines how I will grade these case briefs. The third handout provides an example of a properly done case brief. If you would like to read the case briefed in the model case, you can find it at Delanhanty v. Hickley, 564 A.2d 758 (D.C. 1989).
Legal case names should be done in standard “Blue Book” format. For example: York v. Smith, 65 U.S. 294 (1995). For further information, see Cornell University Law School Website under the “How to Cite” section. Bluebook citation information is also found in the course materials and announcement sections of the class.

Your brief should be 2 pages in length and in the approved format.