§ 75A.002.Limited Liability

The protection and its limits, and both halves matter.

An agritourism entity is not liable for a participant injury if either: the warning was posted as the posted-warning section requires; or the entity obtained a written agreement and warning statement as the signed-agreement section requires.

Two independent routes, and the sign alone suffices. An operator that posts the sign correctly need not obtain anything from individual visitors.

Subsection (b) sets out four exceptions, and they are the substance of the chapter.

(A) the entity's negligence evidencing a disregard for the safety of the participant. (B) either a dangerous condition on the land, facilities, or equipment, or the dangerous propensity, not disclosed to the participant, of a particular animal used in the activity — in each case where the entity had actual knowledge or reasonably should have known. (C) the entity's failure to train or improper training of an employee actively involved in the activity. (D) injury intentionally caused by the entity.

The animal propensity exception is peculiar to this chapter and does real work — an operator that knows a particular animal bites and says nothing is outside the protection.

Note the knowledge standard: actual knowledge OR should have known. That is constructive knowledge, which is more demanding of the operator than the licensee duty elsewhere in this part of the code.

Subsection (c) makes the limitation additional to other limitations of liability.