Articles Posted in Premises Liability

In Lee v. K&N Management, Inc., the plaintiff sued a store and barbecue after tripping on ground cover near the store entrance. Before going to the store to pick up dessert, she’d been eating dinner with her mother and brother, and she drank a single margarita. At the store, her mother pulled the car up to the sidewalk instead of parking, and the woman got out of the car, wearing flip flops.

After leaving the car and stepping forward, the plaintiff slipped on ground cover, which she later claimed had grown out of the flowerbed and onto the sidewalk. A store employee who was also a friend of the family later spotted her fall from 25 feet away. After the fall, he saw that plants had grown 10 inches out of the flowerbed and onto the sidewalk. The plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle, which necessitated two surgeries.

The plaintiff sued under theories of negligence and premises liability. The store moved for summary judgment. It argued that the overgrowth wasn’t dangerous as a matter of law under premises liability law, that the store neither knew nor should have known of the defect, and that there wasn’t evidence of either of these elements. The plaintiff argued that it was reasonable to infer that the plant grew slowly in growing over the edge of the flowerbed, which raised a factual issue about whether the store should have known about the defect. She didn’t address the argument that a plant overgrowth was not dangerous as a matter of law.

Continue reading →

In PNS Stores, Inc. v. Munguia, a store appealed from a judgment awarding a plaintiff $1,048,500 in damages in his premises liability case. Two bottles of deck wash fell from a shelf five feet high and hit the plaintiff on the head when he and his son went to the defendant’s store in Pasadena to buy a trashcan. Before being hit, he saw one or two 32-ounce bottles falling, and he witnessed one or two more bottles fall from a shelf. No warning cones or signs had been placed in the aisle.

As he approached the bottles, the plaintiff saw a store employee coming from the other side of the aisle where he was stacking merchandise. The plaintiff helped the store employee pick up the fallen bottles, and he was standing up when two bottles fell and hit him on the head. The store employee later stated he’d knocked the bottles off the shelf, and they hit the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was dazed. He spoke to the manager. The incident report included the store employee’s statement. The report also noted that the plaintiff’s ear was red due to the force of the impact. When he went home, the plaintiff was nauseated and weak, and he sought medical attention. He was advised by a medical clinic to go to the ER for evaluation of head trauma, but he went back home instead.

Continue reading →

In Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Jenkins, the Texas Supreme Court considered a premises liability case in which the property’s dangerous condition was created by an previous owner. The case arose in 2006 when a man was injured while using a component to add acid to a large tank at a chemical plant. The plant produced triethylene glycol (“TEG”). This needed to be kept at a particular acidity.

The acid-addition device had multiple components. In 1992, it was designed and put on the tank by Occidental Chemical Corporation, and it was believed to be a safer way to add acid to regulate the pH. It was used for six years without a problem. In 1998, the plan was sold to Equistar Chemicals, the plaintiff’s employer. Many years later, the plaintiff was injured.

His employer asked the plaintiff to add acid to the tank for the first time.. He looked at the operating instructors and added the acid. Later, he was asked to adjust the pH again. However, the acid from the morning remained in the system under pressure. When he opened the first valve, acid flew into his eyes.

Continue reading →

In Texas State Technical College v. Washington, the plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell in water on the Texas State Technical College campus after a water line broke the building’s ceiling and flooded the floor. The college is a governmental unit. She sued the college for personal injuries suffered in the fall. The college filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing among other things that she failed to provide evidence it knew or should have known about the water on the floor, and that she failed to establish a waiver of the college’s immunity. The plea to the jurisdiction was denied.

The college appealed. In general, the Texas Tort Claims Act waives governmental immunity in a slip and fall case when the governmental entity would be liable to the claimant if it were a private person in Texas. The issue in the appeal was whether there was evidence of the college’s liability that invoked a waiver of governmental immunity.

The appellate court explained that in Texas slip and fall cases, plaintiffs must show defendants have actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous conditions in order to recover damages. The dangerous condition in this case was a slippery substance on the floor. In order to establish the actual or constructive knowledge requirement, the plaintiff needs to prove:  (1) the defendant put the substance on the floor; (2) the defendant actually knew the substance was on the floor; or (3) more likely than not, the condition existed long enough to give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover the problem.

Continue reading →

In Reyes v. Memorial Hermann Health, a plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of her personal injury claims against the defendant. The case was dismissed because she failed to timely file an expert report under section 74.351 of the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA).

The case arose when a woman slipped and fell on a liquid substance inside the defendant’s premises. There were no signs or other warnings about the unsafe flood conditions. She also claimed that the defendant knew or should have known about the hazardous condition, that it breached its duty of care, and that the breach caused her injuries. She claimed that her injuries and damages were proximately (legally) caused by the defendant’s failure to use reasonable care. She did not state specific details about why she was on the property.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that it was a health care liability claim. and she had failed to file a timely expert report. She responded that her claims weren’t health care liability claims and that she’d filed an expert report. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

Continue reading →

In the recent case of University of Texas at Arlington v. Sandra Williams, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether the recreational use statute applies to those watching sports matches. The statute (Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 75.001) protects landowners from run-of-the-mill negligence claims when they allow their property to be used for public recreation. However the protection only covers specific, defined recreational uses. Under the recreational use statute, plaintiffs suing landowners to whom the statute applies must prove gross negligence, malicious intent, or bad faith.

The court of appeals had determined that those watching sports matches were not doing an activity similar enough to the listed recreational uses, and it held that watching sports was not “recreation” under the statute. The defendant university asked the Texas Supreme Court to review.

The case arose when a woman and her husband sued the university for injuries the woman suffered when she fell at a university stadium. The couple was there to watch their teenage daughter’s soccer game. When the game was over, the woman went down the stairs to wait for her daughter. She stopped at an elevation, near a guardrail that separated the stands from the field. The gate’s latch had previously broken, but it was held shut with a padlock and chain. She leaned against the gate and it opened. She fell five feet to the field and hurt her rib and arm.

Continue reading →