Articles Posted in Premises Liability

In a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion, the Court considered a slip and fall case brought against a scaffolding contractor. The case arose when a pipefitter was scheduled to work overtime at a refinery. For the overtime shift, he worked with a different crew than usual, but all crewmembers were employees. The crew had the job of conducting routine maintenance. The pipefitter’s job was dangerous, and he and others were on a scaffold 15 feet above the ground and received fresh air through special equipment.

The pipefitter slipped on some plywood that wasn’t nailed down, and as a result, he fell up to his arms through a hole in the scaffold and hurt his neck. A contractor hired by the pipefitter’s employer built the scaffold. The contractor was required to follow OSHA regulations and other policies, and it needed to inspect about 3,000 scaffolds at the refinery before and during work shifts and use. The scaffold at issue was inspected a week before the work started, but the contractor’s reps weren’t there on the date of the fall, and they were not there during the three days before it.

The pipefitter sued the contractor, claiming improper construction of the scaffold and failure to warn. The contractor didn’t raise the issue of premises liability. The jury found the contractor negligent. It assigned 51% responsibility to the contractor and 49% to the pipefitter/plaintiff. The damages awarded were $178,000 in future medical expenses only.

Continue reading →

In a recent Texas appellate decision, an appellate court considered a premises liability lawsuit in which a former tenant challenged a summary judgment dismissal. The case arose when the plaintiff leased a house in Texas from the defendants under a written lease. He claimed that in January 2013, he tripped and fell on the driveway because of broken and loose rocks in the driveway. He alleged he broke his back due to the fall.

He sued the property owners on the basis of negligence and asked for punitive damages based on gross negligence. The property owners filed for summary judgment, arguing that they didn’t owe a duty to their lessee unless they had written notice that a repair was needed, as required by the lease, and they didn’t owe a duty to warn the plaintiff because the disrepair in the driveway was open and obvious, or else the plaintiff knew about its condition for at least six months before his fall. Later, in a supplemental motion, they also claimed that the driveway wasn’t in the property description in their deed to the property, there was no evidence they controlled the driveway, and the plaintiff had failed to put forth evidence that the driveway presented an unreasonable risk of injury.

The plaintiff responded, stating that he knew of the defect but didn’t know of the specific stone that came loose at the end of the driveway. He also filed an untimely amended response. Summary judgment was granted.

Continue reading →

In a recent Texas slip and fall case, the plaintiff walked around a wet floor warning sign that was situated in the hall outside the bathroom in the defendant’s convenience store. The restrooms were at the back of the store and could be accessed through an open entry that led to a small hall.

Surveillance video showed that there was a yellow warning sign that said “wet floor” located in the entry. When the plaintiff turned the corner and walked into the hall to go to the restroom, he walked past the sign. He also walked past an employee who was wet-mopping the floor. While he was inside the restroom, the employee wet-mopped the entrance where the sign was located. She moved the sign while mopping, mopped the spot where the warning sign was, and then returned the sign to the original place.

Two minutes after going into the restroom, the plaintiff left the bathroom and slipped and fell on the wet hallway floor a few feet from the location of the sign. He was hurt and sued the defendants for personal injuries based on premises liability. As a customer, the plaintiff was considered an invitee to the store under Texas law.

Continue reading →

In a recent Texas appellate case, the appellate court considered a survival and wrongful death lawsuit involving governmental immunity. The decedent had escaped from his bed at a hospital while receiving psychiatric treatment. He was not secured by wrist or ankle restraints when he left. He suffered fatal injuries when a train hit him shortly after his escape from the facility.

The decedent was brought by paramedics to the facility in 2013 after police found him unconscious. He was admitted for treatment at the main campus at around 10 p.m. and seemed to have an altered mental status that included combativeness and agitation. A notation on the hospital records stated possible drug abuse, and his history showed he had schizophrenia.

The decedent took out his catheter close to 11 p.m. and screamed at the staff. The police got him back on the stretcher, and medication was ordered. He was restrained and eventually calmed down with sedation. Wrist and ankle restraints were ordered, but they were pulled off by 1:30 a.m. He fell asleep with security by his bed. At around 3:16, he got up to go to the bathroom and returned to the stretcher. At 6:40 a.m., he was discharged but then brought back during the afternoon of the same day with severe symptoms of drug-induced psychosis.

Continue reading →

It is important to retain an attorney who is diligent about making sure a defendant is served with your complaint. In Oyejobi v. Dollar Tree Stores, a Texas plaintiff slipped and fell in a Dollar Tree Store. Two years later to the day, he sued Dollar Tree, alleging personal injuries and asking for citation and service. Several months later, however, the trial court issued a notice that it would dismiss for lack of prosecution. The citation was issued a few days later, and Dollar Tree was served just under a month later.

Dollar Tree answered the complaint but claimed the case was barred by the statute of limitations. It filed a motion for summary judgment on that basis, arguing that it met its burden to show that it was only served with the complaint after the expiration of the limitations period and that the plaintiff had failed to use diligence to make sure that service was effected.

The plaintiff responded, arguing that his actions to make sure service was effected raised a factual issue as to his diligence. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff asked for it to reconsider. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

In Tarrant Regional Water District v. Johnson, a Texas Court of Appeals addressed a case in which the parents’ 19-year-old daughter drowned in the Trinity River while trying to walk across Trinity Park Dam to get to her job interview. The dam had a kayak chute in the middle, through which the river passed. The parents sued the Tarrant Regional Water District after her death because it operates the kayak chutes and other structures on the river where she drowned.

They brought claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, claiming that she’d been killed due to a premises defect or a special defect. They also claimed the District was liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for negligence because its employee had used personal property or provided their daughter with inadequate personal property, and the District was acting either with malicious intent or with gross negligence. They sued for wrongful death and survival causes of action.

The District filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming its sovereign immunity hadn’t been waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act because (1) the parents didn’t specify the personal property misused, (2) the premises were not a special defect as a matter of law, and (3) even if the parents alleged a premises defect for which the District’s immunity was waived, its decisions about the design of the dam and its safety features, including warnings, were discretionary. They also argued that the parents hadn’t identified the defect that created an unreasonable hazard, and even if they did, there was no evidence it caused their daughter’s death. They also argued that they had provided warnings, and the kayak chute was an open and obvious danger. The plea to the jurisdiction was denied.

Continue reading →