2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB5624
HB5624 creates a liability limitation for defined commercial off-road vehicle activities when the operator or other covered entity has posted and maintained the required warning in a clearly visible location at an entrance.
Official caption: Relating to the liability of a motorized off-road vehicle entity for injuries arising from certain activities.
Official report lists House author(s): Buckley, Metcalf, Isaac, Orr. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB5624 creates a liability limitation for defined commercial off-road vehicle activities when the operator or other covered entity has posted and maintained the required warning in a clearly visible location at an entrance.
- Covered vehicles have two to four wheels, a combustion engine or electric motor, weigh 8,000 pounds or less, and are designed for unpaved roads and surfaces.
- A participant excludes an entity's employee.
- Liability is not limited for injuries proximately caused by the entity's gross negligence or intentional misconduct concerning area/participant safety; ordinary negligence involving a vehicle or equipment the entity supplied; non-inherent dangerous conditions the entity knew or reasonably should have known about; or failure to train/improper training of an employee actively involved in the area or activity.
- Separately, the act states that the attractive-nuisance doctrine—a legal doctrine relevant to some child-trespasser injury claims—does not apply to a claim by a person for an injury occurring in a defined off-road vehicle area.
What does it do?
HB5624 creates a liability limitation for defined commercial off-road vehicle activities when the operator or other covered entity has posted and maintained the required warning in a clearly visible location at an entrance. The warning must be posted when the injury occurs. It is not blanket immunity: the law contains specific exceptions. The prescribed sign must state that Texas law, Chapter 75E of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, limits the entity’s liability for participant injuries or death resulting from the activity; the exact required wording is in the act. Final law, 75E.002(a) and 75E.003.
Covered vehicles have two to four wheels, a combustion engine or electric motor, weigh 8,000 pounds or less, and are designed for unpaved roads and surfaces. Covered activities are recreational or educational activities at commercial properties designed for that purpose, including instruction, practice, competitions, performances, tours, hunts and races. Protected entities include qualifying owners, operators and lessees, as well as sponsors, sanctioning/endorsing bodies and officials, including employees or volunteers within the statutory definition. The law is not a general liability exemption for every off-road drive anywhere. Final law, definitions.
A participant excludes an entity’s employee. Spectators ordinarily are excluded too, unless they enter an unauthorized area or intentionally put themselves in immediate proximity to the activity. Covered participant injuries include bodily injury, emotional distress, death, property damage and other losses arising from participation. Final law, 75E.001(3)–(4).
Liability is not limited for injuries proximately caused by the entity’s gross negligence or intentional misconduct concerning area/participant safety; ordinary negligence involving a vehicle or equipment the entity supplied; non-inherent dangerous conditions the entity knew or reasonably should have known about; or failure to train/improper training of an employee actively involved in the area or activity. Intentionally caused injuries are also excluded. The dangerous-condition provision distinguishes inherent off-road driving risks and refers to unstable roads/surfaces and natural or man-made obstacles; a specific injury’s classification depends on its facts. Final law, 75E.002(b).
Separately, the act states that the attractive-nuisance doctrine—a legal doctrine relevant to some child-trespasser injury claims—does not apply to a claim by a person for an injury occurring in a defined off-road vehicle area. That subsection’s wording is broader than the participant-injury wording of the main liability limitation; it should not be reduced to “a sign waives every claim.” The act applies only to causes of action that accrue on or after September 1, 2025, not simply lawsuits filed after that date. Final law, 75E.002(c) and Sections 2–3; official history.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill covered owners/operators, treated a spectator as a participant only when entering an unauthorized area and being immediately near the activity, and preserved ordinary-negligence claims for area/participant safety as well as supplied equipment. The House committee substitute broadened covered entities to include lessees and activity sponsors/officials, changed the spectator test to unauthorized entry or intentional immediate proximity, and raised the area/participant-safety exception to gross negligence or intentional misconduct while retaining ordinary negligence for supplied vehicles/equipment. It also adjusted the inherent-risk wording and corrected the warning section number. These changes survived in the House-passed and final texts. Introduced; House substitute; House-passed.
The Senate committee substitute changed the attractive-nuisance exclusion from a claim “subject to this section” to a claim by a person for an injury occurring in an off-road vehicle area. That wording survives in the final act. The amendment index lists no floor amendments; the material revisions were committee substitutes. The House concurred May 30. Senate substitute; amendment index; text index.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Covered businesses and activity organizers may face fewer qualifying injury claims if they comply with the warning requirement. Injured participants and some spectators may have narrower routes to compensation; the retained equipment-negligence, training, dangerous-condition and serious-misconduct exceptions therefore matter. The act does not establish lower admission prices or insurance premiums, and an owner’s sign does not prove that every exception is absent.
The final-posted May 29 fiscal note, labeled “As Passed 2nd House,” anticipates no significant state or local fiscal implication, assuming costs can be absorbed within existing resources. All earlier indexed notes reach the same fiscal conclusion. None measures private injury losses, insurance effects or litigation savings, and none supplies a dollar amount or multi-year table. The act makes no appropriation. Final-posted fiscal note; introduced; House substitute; engrossed; Senate substitute.
Review boundary: every final definition and operative provision, history, all five text versions, the empty floor-amendment index and all indexed fiscal notes were read and compared. This is not advice on a particular accident, waiver, sign or common-law claim, and it does not predict how courts will resolve a disputed exception.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.