Premises Liability

Published on: December 23, 2014

Liability Exception Under Chapter 95 in Texas

Under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, property owners will not be liable when a contractor or a subcontractor or its employee is hurt on a property owner’s property while performing repairs or construction. A property owner under the chapter is someone who owns real property that is primarily used for commercial or business purposes. The exception is when a property owner exercises or keeps control over the manner in which the work was performed, and the property owner had actual knowledge of the danger or condition resulting in the injury. At trial, a property owner will have to show that chapter 95 applies to the case.

In Rosa v. Mestena Operating LLC, a man and his wife sued a property owner for negligence and premises liability after the man suffered an on-the-job injury. The accident happened when the man was hurt at work while performing maintenance on electrical poles for his employer, a maintenance company. A utility company had an easement on the property and contracted with a maintenance company to perform maintenance on the poles.

The defendant, Mestena Operating LLC, was an operator of oil and gas wells that had a mineral lease on the property where the electrical poles were located. There was no contractual relationship between Mestena and the man’s employer. The plaintiffs claimed that the man had contacted an energized ground wire and suffered electric shock on the job. The ground wire was linked to equipment on the mineral lease. The plaintiffs theorized that the Mestena equipment, which was about 1,400 feet from the place where the plaintiff was located, had malfunctioned, causing the ground wire to be energized. The plaintiffs argued that Mestena knew or should have known about the danger of the ground wire. Continue reading →

Published on: December 11, 2014

When Can A Nonparty to A Texas Contract Be Compelled to Arbitrate a Personal Injury Case?

By Carabin Shaw

In ENGlobal U.S. Inc. v. Gatlin, a Texas appellate court was asked to decide whether a party to a contract with an arbitration clause could compel arbitration of a personal injury claim by a nonparty to the contract under the doctrine of “direct benefits estoppel.” The case arose from Phillips 66’s ownership and operation of an oil refinery. The operator of the refinery had contracted with Clean Harbor, an industrial service contractor, to clean oil storage tanks at the refinery.

An employee of the industrial service contractor was working as a hydroblaster at the refinery. While working, the lanyard on his safety harness got caught in the walkway, resulting in his fall and back injury.

When the accident happened, ENGlobal was a contractor that performed engineering for Phillips 66. Their relationship was governed by a master service agreement that included an arbitration provision. The employee had not signed this agreement, and he sued Phillips 66, ENGLobal, and another company in order to recover damages. He alleged negligent undertaking and premises liability. Continue reading →

Published on: October 8, 2014

Negligent Security in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In a 2011 premises liability case, two sisters appealed a summary judgment in favor of Little Caesar’s Pizza. The case arose when the sisters were in a restaurant when an armed robbery occurred. Two masked robbers came into the pizzeria, brandished their guns, and threatened the people in the restaurant. The robbers were wearing restaurant uniforms. A robber shot one of the women (Viera) when she and her sister left through the back door, and her sister (Estrada) saw the shooting.

The report showed that the robbers shot at the store managers. They ordered people to the back of the pizzeria and told the customers to run. Several customers, including the sisters, ran out of the open back door. Estrada left before Viera and when she looked back, she saw a gunman shoot three times at her sister. When the police investigated, they found the shooting was an inside job conducted with the help of a restaurant worker who left the back door open.

The sisters sued for negligent security. They claimed that the pizzeria failed to offer adequate security and that it was foreseeable an assault would happen on the property. They sought personal injury damages based on physical injuries, as well as mental anguish and PTSD. The pizzeria moved for summary judgment, arguing that the shooting happened outside the restaurant, there was no duty owed to the sisters, no evidence of causation, no evidence of foreseeability, and alternatively that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 16, 2014

Texas Ranch Operator Liability for Trespassers’ Fatal Truck Crash

By Carabin Shaw

A family from Mexico — a mother, father, and child — hired a “coyote” to transport them into the United States, to either New Orleans or Houston.

He picked them up in a truck at a safe house in Texas, along with another passenger. They drove to the private Jones Ranch, arriving before dawn. The coyote ordered his passengers to move from the back seat to the floor of the truck. Somehow he had keys to the locked gate of the ranch and drove onto the property.

A ranch employee spotted and stopped the strange truck, even in the early morning darkness, and asked the driver what he was doing on the ranch. The employee observed only the driver and a front seat passenger and also wrote down the license plate number of the truck.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 25, 2014

Worker Injured on Former’s Employer’s Premises

By Carabin Shaw

A recent appellate case arose when a plaintiff was seriously burned after falling into a pool of hot water at the defendant’s chemical plant. The plant had multiple manufacturing units, but the facility was owned by DuPont. The unit where the plaintiff was injured was a formaldehyde production unit. Steam was a key part of the chemical production, and both steam and formaldehyde were supplied by D.B. Western, Inc., which built a formaldehyde manufacturing plant on land adjacent to the chemical plant. Steam pipes ran through the DuPont plant, and through them ran formaldehyde and steam from the adjacent plant.

There were steam traps designed by D.B. Western that DuPont and its outside company Spirex Sarco were responsible for maintaining. In 2004, DuPont sold the formaldehyde unit to Invista, and the employees of DuPont working there, including the plaintiff, became Invista employees. Invista had a contract with the same contracting company to purchase the steam and inspect the pipeline system. The plaintiff was burned by hot condensate that was in a pool under a pipeline.

The plaintiff sued DuPont, the owner of the plant, alleging negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the pipeline and steam traps, as well as premises liability. With regard to premises liability, the plaintiff claimed he was an invitee of DuPont. The plaintiff’s wife alleged loss of consortium.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 18, 2014

One Year After Loved One is Killed at Six Flags, a Dallas Family Wants Answers

By Carabin Shaw

One year after a Dallas woman tragically fell to her death at a Six Flags amusement park in Arlington, the legal issues are far from over.

The accident occurred on the evening of July 19, 2013, when 52-year old Rosa Esparza fell 75 feet from where she had been sitting, behind her daughter and son-in-law, on one of the thrill rides. Prior to this, Esparza was allegedly upside down in her seat and holding on for “dear life” before plunging to her death from the Texas Giant ride. This was Esparza’s first visit to the Six Flags theme park.

Following the tragedy, the Arlington Police Department and Six Flags conducted an investigation into what went wrong. The ride shut down for the rest of July and August, before reopening in September after the investigation found no evidence of mechanical failure. Added to the ride were restraining bar pads that had been redesigned, seat belts, and a coaster seat at the entrance so potential riders could determine whether they would fit into the cars securely. Esparza’s family learned that the coaster seat had remained stored after the Texas Giant ride reopened in 2011 following a $10 million renovation.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 22, 2013

Stadium Safety Issues Emerge Again after Another Season of Football Begins

By Carabin Shaw

On September 8, 2012, opening weekend of football for the NFL, a spectator fell to his death at San Francisco 49ers stadium while attending the game. The spectator fell to his death from a pedestrian walkway outside of the stadium. Multiple witnesses told police that the victim appeared to be intoxicated at the time of his fall. That very same weekend, two fans were injured when a railing collapsed inside Lucas Oil Stadium, home of the Indianapolis Colts, during a Colts game against the Oakland Raiders. Luckily, neither of these fans were seriously injuries. Unfortunately, however, these incidents are just the latest in a series of deaths and injuries at sports stadiums across the United States over the past several years.

Recent Accidents

According to the Institute for the Study of Sports Incidents, based at the University of Southern Mississippi, since 2003 there have been more than two-dozen cases of fans falling at stadiums across the country. On August 13, 2013, an Atlanta Braves fan was killed at Turner Field in Atlanta after falling 85 feet from a fourth-level railing of the stadium onto a parking lot below. In addition, during a pre-season NFL football game this year, a Denver Broncos fan was injured when he fell 10 feet from an escalator. Finally, at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Texas in 2011, a spectator fell to this death from the left-field seats after trying to catch a ball tossed towards him.

Premises Liability

In addition to complying with local and states laws, all stadiums must also comply with the strict safety guidelines instituted by the International Building Code, which has been adopted by all 50 states and the District of Colombia. Among the guidelines are various railing requirements, including calls for railings in front of seats to be at least 26 inches high, and a requirement that protective railings placed in open-sided areas such as concourses be at least 42 inches in height.

Continue reading →