SB 468, introduced by Sen. Schneider, is one of those oddly specific bills. According to the digest:
Grants civil immunity to the operator of a bowling center for injuries caused to a bowler who slips or falls in the bowling center due to the presence of a substance on the bowler’s shoe that was acquired outside the bowling center and tracked in. Requires the operator to post a conspicuous notice near the entrances and exits to the bowling center. Provides that the civil immunity does not apply if the operator fails to maintain the premises in a safe condition or the injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Aside from being more specific than we probably want in a law of general applicability (injuries particularly caused by a substance on a shoe tracked in from outside?), the exceptions tend to swallow the benefit of the immunity. For example, it only applies if the premises were otherwise maintained in a reasonably safe manner. The usefulness of immunity statutes comes from not having to go to trial to have a jury decide whether or not you acted reasonably. Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability. I don’t see this statute ever saving a bowling center operator from having to go to trial.