According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2613 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state government. The report assumes that any administrative costs related to implementing the bill’s provisions, such as monitoring compliance with liability limitations or ensuring proper signage requirements at water parks, could be absorbed using existing state resources. Since the bill primarily affects private water park entities rather than state agencies, no direct state expenditures or revenue changes are anticipated.

Similarly, local governments are not expected to face significant fiscal implications. The bill does not create new regulatory responsibilities or enforcement duties for municipal or county governments. Since water parks are privately operated businesses, local government budgets are unlikely to be directly affected by changes in liability protections. The bill may lead to reduced litigation costs for local courts by limiting certain lawsuits against water parks, but this impact is expected to be minimal and not quantifiable.

Overall, HB 2613 appears to be fiscally neutral, meaning it neither imposes additional costs on the state nor generates new revenue. The bill primarily impacts private businesses and legal liabilities, rather than public funding or government services.

Hb 2613 aims to limit liability for water parks in Texas by ensuring that visitors assume the risks associated with water-related recreational activities. The bill follows precedents set by existing agribusiness and recreational vehicle liability protections and seeks to prevent frivolous lawsuits that can burden businesses. While the bill does not absolve water parks of all responsibility, it protects them from legal action related to inherent risks, provided proper warning signs are posted. However, negligence, failure to train employees, and hazardous conditions that should have been addressed remain grounds for legal liability​.

From a liberty perspective, the bill supports free enterprise and private property rights, as it reduces legal uncertainties for businesses and could lower insurance and litigation costs. It also reinforces personal responsibility, as visitors must acknowledge the inherent risks of water park activities. However, there is some concern regarding individual liberty, as the broad limitation of liability could weaken consumer protections in cases where safety issues are not immediately clear. Additionally, while the bill does not impose direct government intervention, it introduces new statutory provisions, which could complicate legal interpretations in the future​.

A recommended amendment would be to clarify the scope of negligence in the bill’s language, ensuring that businesses cannot evade responsibility for risks they should have reasonably addressed. Additionally, periodic safety audits could be required to balance liability protection with consumer safety. With these modifications, the bill would better serve its intended purpose of reducing unnecessary litigation while ensuring fair protections for both businesses and patrons. Given these considerations, thought Texas Policy Research recommends lawmakers vote YES on HB 2613, we also encourage lawmakers to consider amendments as described above.

• Individual Liberty: The bill limits the ability of individuals to seek legal recourse for injuries sustained at water parks, which could restrict personal freedoms in certain cases. While patrons are given clear warnings about potential risks, this does not entirely eliminate the concern that some injuries could result from hidden dangers or insufficient safety measures. By shifting liability away from businesses, the bill may weaken consumer protections and limit individuals’ rights to sue for damages, reducing their ability to hold negligent operators accountable.
• Personal Responsibility: A key premise of the bill is placing responsibility on individuals to understand and accept the risks involved in water park activities. This reinforces the idea that people should be accountable for their own decisions when engaging in recreational activities. By requiring posted warnings, the bill ensures that visitors are aware of potential risks, which supports informed decision-making. However, there is a fine line between personal responsibility and shielding businesses from accountability, especially when negligence is involved.
• Free Enterprise: By limiting frivolous lawsuits, HB 2613 creates a more stable legal environment for water parks, potentially reducing insurance costs and encouraging investment in the industry. This aligns with free-market principles, as businesses can operate with fewer legal risks and allocate resources toward improving services rather than legal defense. However, if liability protections are too broad, they could disincentivize safety improvements, which could harm the industry’s reputation in the long run.
• Private Property Rights: The bill strengthens property owners' rights by allowing water parks to operate with reduced legal exposure from lawsuits related to inherent risks. This prevents businesses from being unfairly penalized for injuries resulting from voluntary participation in risky activities. However, property rights should also come with responsibilities, and the bill must ensure that water parks remain accountable for maintaining safe conditions to prevent exploitation of liability protections.
• Limited Government: On one hand, the bill reduces government intervention by curbing excessive litigation and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses. This aligns with the principle of limiting the role of government in private sector disputes. On the other hand, it introduces a new statutory framework (Chapter 75D of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code), which adds complexity to existing liability laws. Additionally, if the bill lacks strong consumer protections, it could lead to calls for future government intervention to address safety concerns.

• SB 1119 (Same As)