Relating to nuisance actions against racing facilities and racetracks

This bill relates to circumstances in which a sports or exposition venue operation is immune from nuisance actions for damages and provides for exceptions. The bill defines the term “sports or exposition venue”. The bill provides that a person is eligible to file a nuisance action to recover damages if the person is the majority owner of real property that is adversely affected by a competitive sporting event at the sports or exposition venue and the sports or exposition venue has materially violated a law. The bill provides that a venue that has been in operation for more than a year is not a nuisance as a result of a changed condition in the locality where the sports or exposition venue is located. The bill provides that this provision is an absolute defense provided that the sports and exposition venue operation is in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and permits. The bill prohibits a state or local agency from bringing an action against a sports or exposition venue operation for an activity that is in material compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and permits. The bill provides that a sports or exposition venue operation shall not be deemed a nuisance if the sports or exposition venue is operated in a manner consistent with commonly accepted industry practice. The bill provides that a reasonable expansion of a sports or exposition venue operation shall not be considered grounds for a nuisance action against the sports or exposition venue. A reasonable expansion includes: the transfer of the sports or exposition venue operation, purchase of additional land for the sports or exposition venue, introducing technology to an existing sports or exposition venue, and any other change that is related and applied to an existing sports or exposition venue. A reasonable expansion does not include an expansion that creates a substantially adverse effect upon the environment or hazard to public health and safety. The bill provides that if a sports or exposition venue operation is annexed or brought within a municipality’s corporate boundaries of a municipality, the requirements of the municipality do not apply to the existing sports or exposition venue operation. The bill prohibits a sports or exposition venue operation from becoming a nuisance after it has been in operation for more than one year, if the operation was not a nuisance at the time the operation began, and the conditions or circumstances complained of as constituting the basis for the nuisance action exist substantially unchanged since the established date of operation. The bill does not apply to any nuisance action arising from a negligent operation of such sports or exposition venue or a nuisance action arising from injuries or damages sustained from violation of law, regulation, ordinance, or requirements that applies motor sports or exposition venues by the sports or exposition venue. The bill provides that protected status of a sports or exposition venue operation may not be waived once acquired but is assignable, alienable, and inheritable.