Articles Posted in Premises Liability

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 →

In Young v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, a plaintiff appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The case arose when the plaintiff went through the self-checkout lane to buy ice cream. While leaving, she slipped in clear liquid and hurt her knee, ankle and hip. A cashier came over and asked if she was all right and left to get paper towels. The plaintiff wasn’t sure how much water she had slipped on, but later testified it took the cashier two trips to get enough paper towels to mop it up. After falling, the plaintiff talked to employees that came up to her.

She said that none of the employees said they knew there was a water puddle on the floor before she fell. The ambulance took her to the hospital. Later, the cashier testified that she was working in the self-checkout area for half an hour before the plaintiff fell. She said that she glimpsed the accident from the corner of her eye and then saw the plaintiff on the floor. The cashier went over to help the plaintiff and saw a puddle of water six inches in diameter. She had a paper towel in her hand and wiped up the puddle with the towel. The cashier said she hadn’t seen a substance there before the fall and didn’t know how long it was there, though she didn’t think it was there long because she had been walking around in that location and would have cleaned it if she had seen it.

The plaintiff sued the store for premises liability. The store filed a motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that there wasn’t any evidence it knew or should have known about the dangerous condition. The store attached the plaintiff’s deposition as evidence and the plaintiff responded with both her deposition transcript and the cashier’s. The trial court granted the motion and rendered a take-nothing judgment.

Continue reading →

In East El Paso Physicians Medical Center, LLC v. Olivia Vargas, an 81-year-old plaintiff who used a walker claimed she was injured when she went to a hospital facility. As she left the building, the automatic doors closed on her walker, and she fell and suffered a shoulder injury. She sued the hospital, arguing that the hospital had failed to correct a dangerous condition, failed to warn her about the dangerous condition, and failed to set and enforce appropriate safety standards.

The hospital moved to dismiss. It argued that the claim was a health care liability claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act (“the Act”). Under the Act, the plaintiff had to submit an expert report showing causation within 120 days of filing a health care liability claim. The hospital argued the plaintiff’s failure to file an expert report required that her case be dismissed. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The hospital appealed.

The hospital argued that the trial court had erred in denying its motion because the plaintiff’s allegations related to state regulations controlling hospital construction. It further argued that the plaintiff had not filed an ordinary premises liability claim, but a claim based on the standards that a hospital had to meet to offer health care services in Texas. The appellate court found that this argument didn’t sufficiently distinguish between the current case and other premises liability cases to bring the plaintiff’s claim within the requirements of the Act. Continue reading →