UnderstandingUnderstanding thethe DifferencesDifferences BetweenBetween PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability andand NegligenceNegligence
Kirsten A. Davenport Joanna M. Tollenaere Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214 -712 -9500 Telecopy: 214 -712 -9540 Email: [email protected] [email protected] FirstFirst ofof all...all...
TheThe failure failure to to exercise exercise such such care care as as anan ordinarily ordinarily prudent prudent person person would would havehave exercised exercised under under the the same same or or similarsimilar circumstances.circumstances.
NegligenceNegligence is is ““accidentalaccidental ”” asas distinguisheddistinguished fromfrom intentionalintentional torts.torts.
2 NegligenceNegligence TheThe elementselements ofof aa causecause ofof actionaction forfor negligencenegligence areare thethe following:following:
1.1. TheThe defendantdefendant owedowed aa legallegal dutyduty toto thethe plaintiff;plaintiff; 2.2. TheThe defendantdefendant breachedbreached thethe duty;duty; andand 3.3. TheThe breachbreach proximatelyproximately causedcaused thethe plaintiff'splaintiff's injury.injury.
3 UnderstandingUnderstanding eacheach element...element...
1.1. TheThe defendantdefendant owedowed aa legallegal dutyduty toto thethe plaintiffplaintiff
WhyWhy isis thethe existenceexistence ofof aa legallegal dutyduty important?important?
WithoutWithout aa legallegal duty,duty, aa defendantdefendant cannotcannot bebe heldheld liableliable inin tort.tort.
4 2.2. TheThe defendantdefendant breachedbreached thethe duty...duty...
AA legallegal dutyduty isis breachedbreached whenwhen aa defendantdefendant doesdoes notnot meetmeet thethe requiredrequired standardstandard ofof care.care.
3.3. TheThe breachbreach proximatelyproximately causedcaused thethe plaintiff'splaintiff's injury.injury.
InIn otherother words,words, thethe plaintiffplaintiff ’’ss injuryinjury couldcould notnot havehave occurredoccurred butbut forfor thethe defendantdefendant ’’ss negligence.negligence.
5 PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability What is Premises Liability?
Premises liability is the body of law that sets guidelines involving the duties owed by land owners or occupiers to protect individuals who enter land from injury.
It is also a form of an ordinary negligence claim that controls the manner of recovery for injuries that are sustained by an individual as a result of a CONDITION of the property, as opposed to recovering for injuries that are sustained as a result of a NEGLIGENT ACTIVITY on the property. result of a NEGLIGENT ACTIVITY on the property.6 TheThe additionaladditional requirementsrequirements ofof aa premisespremises liabilityliability causecause ofof actionaction workwork inin thethe defensedefense favor,favor, asas theythey makemake aa premisespremises actionaction moremore difficultdifficult toto proveprove andand easiereasier toto defenddefend thanthan anan ordinaryordinary --negligencenegligence action.action.
7 StatusStatus ofof Plaintiff...Plaintiff...
InviteeInvitee -- isis aa personperson whowho entersenters thethe premisespremises withwith thethe possessor'spossessor's expressexpress oror impliedimplied knowledgeknowledge andand forfor thethe parties'parties' mutualmutual benefit.benefit.
Examples:Examples: businessbusiness patrons,patrons, membersmembers ofof aa club,club, tenants,tenants, employees,employees, etc.etc.
8 LicenseeLicensee –– iiss aa personperson whowho entersenters thethe propertyproperty ofof anotheranother merelymerely byby expressexpress oror impliedimplied permissionpermission
9 TrespasserTrespasser –– isis aa personperson whowho entersenters aa propertyproperty ofof anotheranother withoutwithout permission,permission, lawfullawful authority,authority, right,right, invitationinvitation (either(either expressexpress oror implied),implied), andand notnot toto performperform aa dutyduty forfor thethe owner/occupier,owner/occupier, but,but, entersenters forfor hishis ownown purposes,purposes, convenience,convenience, pleasure,pleasure, withoutwithout anyany inducement,inducement, enticement,enticement, oror impliedimplied assuranceassurance ofof safetysafety fromfrom thethe owner.owner.
10 ElementsElements
TheThe elementselements ofof aa causecause ofof actionaction forfor premisespremises liabilityliability broughtbrought byby anan inviteeinvitee areare thethe following:following:
1.1. TheThe PlaintiffPlaintiff waswas anan invitee;invitee; 2.2. TheThe defendantdefendant waswas aa possessorpossessor ofof thethe premises;premises; 3.3. AA conditioncondition onon thethe premisespremises posedposed anan unreasonableunreasonable riskrisk ofof harm;harm;
11 4.4. TheThe defendantdefendant knewknew oror reasonablyreasonably shouldshould havehave knownknown ofof thethe danger;danger; 5.5. TheThe defendantdefendant breachedbreached itsits dutyduty ofof ordinaryordinary carecare byby bothboth (1)(1) failingfailing toto adequatelyadequately warnwarn thethe plaintiffplaintiff ofof thethe condition,condition, andand (2)(2) failingfailing toto makemake thethe conditioncondition reasonablyreasonably safe;safe; andand
12 6.6. TheThe defendantdefendant ’’ss breachbreach proximatelyproximately causedcaused thethe plaintiffplaintiff ’’ss injury.injury.
13 StatusStatus ofof DefendantDefendant
WhatWhat isis aa ““possessor?possessor? ””
AA defendantdefendant isis aa ““possessorpossessor ”” ifif itit exercisesexercises controlcontrol overover thethe premises.premises.
14 KeetchKeetch v.v. KrogerKroger Co.Co. Facts...Facts...
Ms.Ms. KeetchKeetch waswas inin aa KrogerKroger storestore buyingbuying bread.bread.
WhileWhile walkingwalking towardtoward thethe checkoutcheckout counter,counter, sheshe crossedcrossed thethe floralfloral department.department.
SheShe slippedslipped andand fell.fell.
15 ToTo recoverrecover onon aa negligentnegligent activityactivity theorytheory ...... thethe personperson mustmust havehave beenbeen injuredinjured byby oror asas aa contemporaneouscontemporaneous resultresult ofof thethe activityactivity itselfitself ratherrather thanthan byby aa conditioncondition createdcreated byby thethe activity.activity. TheThe mainmain difference...difference...
ConditionCondition ofof thethe premisespremises v.v. negligentnegligent activityactivity
17 PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability
RecentRecent CasesCases Del Lago Ptnrs. v. Smith , 2010 Tex. LEXIS 284 (Tex. 2010)
PropertyProperty ownersowners hadhad aa dutyduty toto protectprotect barbar patronpatron becausebecause thethe ownersowners hadhad actualactual andand directdirect knowledgeknowledge thatthat aa violentviolent brawlbrawl waswas imminentimminent betweenbetween drunkdrunk persons.persons.
OwnersOwners werewere awareaware ofof anan unreasonableunreasonable riskrisk ofof harmharm atat thethe barbar thatthat nightnight 19 City of Waco v. Kirwan , 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2009)
CityCity diddid notnot oweowe aa dutyduty toto protectprotect oror warnwarn againstagainst thethe dangersdangers ofof naturalnatural conditions.conditions.
SupremeSupreme courtcourt refusedrefused toto requirerequire aa landownerlandowner whowho postedposted aa signsign warningwarning ofof aa naturalnatural conditioncondition toto detaildetail eacheach possiblepossible dangerousdangerous scenarioscenario concerningconcerning thatthat condition.condition. 20 Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp ., 2009 Tex. LEXIS 636 (Tex. 2009)
HealthHealth carecare liabilityliability claimsclaims dismisseddismissed
PremisesPremises liabilityliability claimsclaims allowedallowed toto proceedproceed
21 Dallas Homes for Jewish Aged, Inc. v. Leeds, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2793 (Tex. App. Dallas Apr. 14, 2010)
NursingNursing homehome residentresident trippedtripped overover wireswires inin hishis roomroom duringduring thethe middlemiddle ofof thethe nightnight whenwhen hehe gotgot upup toto gogo toto thethe bathroombathroom
PlaintiffPlaintiff notnot requiredrequired toto filefile anan expertexpert reportreport becausebecause thethe claimclaim waswas aa premisespremises liabilityliability claim,claim, andand notnot aa healthhealth carecare liabilityliability claim.claim. 22 Maldonado v. D.R. Horton, Inc ., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2482 (Tex. App. Beaumont Apr. 8, 2010)
PropertyProperty ownersowners hadhad nono liabilityliability underunder Tex.Tex. Civ.Civ. Prac.Prac. && Rem.Rem. CodeCode Ann.Ann. §§§§ 95.002,95.002, 95.00395.003 (2005)(2005) becausebecause thethe contractcontract diddid notnot givegive aa rightright ofof controlcontrol toto thethe propertyproperty ownersowners
23 Leon County v. Donahoe , 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 1006 (Tex. App. Waco Feb. 10, 2010)
EvidenceEvidence ofof thethe countycounty custodian'scustodian's actualactual knowledgeknowledge sufficedsufficed toto satisfysatisfy thethe governmentalgovernmental unit'sunit's actualactual knowledgeknowledge ofof thethe allegedalleged premisespremises defect.defect.
24 Silas v. St. Luke's Episcopal Props. Corp ., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 481 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. Jan. 28, 2010)
PlaintiffPlaintiff broughtbrought aa negligencenegligence claimclaim againstagainst buildingbuilding ownerowner andand thethe lesseelessee underunder thethe doctrinedoctrine ofof resres ipsaipsa loquiturloquitur
AlthoughAlthough thethe doctrinedoctrine ofof resres ipsaipsa loquiturloquitur permitspermits aa triertrier ofof factfact toto basebase anan inferenceinference ofof negligencenegligence onon circumstantialcircumstantial evidenceevidence ofof negligence,negligence, itit diddid notnot permitpermit anan inferenceinference thatthat thethe defendantdefendant hadhad actualactual andand constructiveconstructive knowledgeknowledge ofof aa conditioncondition onon thethe premisespremises
25 Brooks v. PRH Invs., Inc , 303 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2010)
WarningWarning waswas adequateadequate asas aa mattermatter ofof lawlaw toto dischargedischarge thethe dutyduty toto warnwarn thethe customercustomer aboutabout thethe possiblepossible danger.danger.
26 Almazon v. Amli Residential Props. Ltd. P ’ship , 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9266 (Tex. App. Austin Dec. 3, 2009)
TheThe companycompany owedowed aa dutyduty toto thethe tenanttenant toto protectprotect herher fromfrom conditionsconditions inin thethe commoncommon areaarea thatthat werewere knownknown oror discoverablediscoverable andand thatthat posedposed anan unreasonableunreasonable riskrisk ofof harm.harm.
TexasTexas courtscourts havehave consistentlyconsistently heldheld thatthat naturallynaturally occurringoccurring conditions,conditions, likelike thethe accumulationaccumulation ofof ice,ice, diddid notnot createcreate anan unreasonableunreasonable riskrisk ofof harmharm forfor purposespurposes ofof premisespremises liability.liability.
27 RecentRecent PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability
JuryJury VerdictsVerdicts DallasDallas CountyCounty -- SlipSlip andand fallfall onon anan accumulationaccumulation ofof ketchupketchup onon thethe floor.floor. DisputedDisputed asas toto howhow longlong thethe ketchupketchup hadhad beenbeen onon thethe floorfloor andand asas toto howhow itit hadhad gottengotten there.there.
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense VerdictVerdict
29 DallasDallas CountyCounty slipslip andand fallfall inin grocerygrocery storestore
PlaintiffPlaintiff contendedcontended sheshe fellfell afterafter comingcoming intointo contactcontact withwith anan unknownunknown substancesubstance inin delideli areaarea ofof store.store.
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense VerdictVerdict
30 Plaintiff,Plaintiff, sistersister ofof apartmentapartment tenant,tenant, claimedclaimed therethere waswas aa bedbed bugbug infestationinfestation whenwhen sheshe waswas livingliving there.there.
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense VerdictVerdict
31 TarrantTarrant CountyCounty slipslip andand fallfall nearnear foodfood kioskkiosk inin mallmall -- InfectionInfection followingfollowing legleg lacerationlaceration
PlaintiffPlaintiff waswas aa businessbusiness inviteeinvitee atat Defendant'sDefendant's Mall.Mall. AsAs sheshe walkedwalked nearnear aa foodfood kiosk,kiosk, PlaintiffPlaintiff sufferedsuffered injuriesinjuries whenwhen sheshe slippedslipped andand fellfell onon aa anan accumulationaccumulation ofof foodfood oror otherother waste.waste.
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense VerdictVerdict
32 Dallas County Slip and fall in water near entrance of grocery store - Closed head injury resulting in cognitive and ambulatory dysfunction.
Plaintiff was a business invitee at Defendant's store. As she exited, Plaintiff suffered injuries when she slipped and fell on an accumulation of rainwater.
RESULT: Plaintiff Verdict, $4,433,000.00
33 Tarrant County Slip and fall in restroom of fast food restaurant - Hip fracture
Plaintiff was a patron at Defendant's restaurant. As he approached the door to the restroom, Plaintiff suffered injuries when he slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor. He contended that no warnings had been posted as to the dangerous premise condition.
RESULT: Plaintiff Verdict, $97,792.50
34 DallasDallas CountyCounty slipslip andand fallfall inin busbus terminalterminal
PlaintiffPlaintiff slippedslipped andand fellfell onon tile.tile. PlaintiffPlaintiff allegedalleged negligencenegligence inin failurefailure toto warnwarn andand inin failurefailure toto remedyremedy aa dangerousdangerous condition.condition. DefendantDefendant contendedcontended PlaintiffPlaintiff hadhad beenbeen negligentnegligent inin failurefailure toto maintainmaintain aa properproper lookoutlookout andand failurefailure toto exerciseexercise ordinaryordinary care.care.
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense verdictverdict
35 TarrantTarrant CountyCounty slipslip andand fallfall atat residenceresidence ofof acquaintanceacquaintance
PlaintiffPlaintiff diddid notnot seesee thethe threethree stepssteps downdown toto thethe livingliving roomroom andand fellfell
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense verdictverdict
36 DallasDallas CountyCounty triptrip andand fallfall onon unevenuneven tiletile
PlaintiffPlaintiff allegedalleged negligencenegligence inin failurefailure toto warnwarn ofof andand failurefailure toto remedyremedy aa dangerousdangerous condition.condition. DefendantDefendant contendedcontended PlaintiffPlaintiff knewknew ofof thethe unevenuneven naturenature ofof thethe lobbylobby tile,tile, havinghaving walkedwalked onon itit numerousnumerous timestimes andand thatthat thethe incidentincident hadhad beenbeen duedue toto PlaintiffPlaintiff ’’ss failurefailure toto exerciseexercise ordinaryordinary care.care.
RESULT:RESULT: DefenseDefense verdictverdict
37 Dallas County Maintenance worker falls through patio roof
Plaintiff stepped onto an outside patio roof to trim vegetation. As she did so, the roof gave way, causing fall to the concrete patio. Plaintiff alleged negligence in failure to warn of and remedy a dangerous condition. Defendant contended Plaintiff should not have attempted to climb onto the roof which was in a questionable state of disrepair.
RESULT: Defense verdict
38 HarrisHarris CountyCounty fallfall fromfrom treetree swingswing
TreeTree limblimb toto whichwhich thethe swingswing waswas tiedtied broke.broke. PlaintiffPlaintiff ’’ss headhead hithit thethe largelarge rocksrocks placedplaced belowbelow thethe swingswing byby thethe Defendant.Defendant. ImpactImpact causedcaused severe,severe, neurologicalneurological injuriesinjuries toto PlaintiffPlaintiff
RESULT:RESULT: SettledSettled inin mediationmediation forfor $250,000.00$250,000.00
39 DallasDallas CountyCounty roofingroofing contractorcontractor fellfell fromfrom roofroof
CausesCauses ofof actionaction forfor failurefailure toto provideprovide safesafe placeplace toto work,work, safesafe supervisionsupervision andand training,training, andand premisespremises liabilityliability
RESULT:RESULT: PlaintiffPlaintiff VerdictVerdict onon premisespremises theory:theory: $272,900.00$272,900.00
40 Tarrant County knee injury during amusement park ride
While on a ride, Plaintiff experienced a jerking of her left knee, resulting in a dislocation of the patella. Plaintiff claimed failure to operate the ride in a safe manner and failure to warn of a hazardous condition. Defendant argued Plaintiff had a pre -existing condition of the knee and that she should have not gone on the ride.
RESULT: Directed verdict for defense
41 Dallas County Slip and fall in grocery store
Business invitee Plaintiff claimed injuries after slipping on water, allegedly leaking from a refrigeration unit. Claimed negligence in failure to warn, failure to inspect and failure to remedy a dangerous condition. Defendant took position the cooler in question had not been leaking.
Result: Defense verdict
42 BexarBexar CountyCounty LegionnairesLegionnaires ’’ DiseaseDisease outbreakoutbreak atat SanSan AntonioAntonio HospitalHospital
1010 toto 1111 patientspatients andand visitorsvisitors toto thethe newnew hospitalhospital facilityfacility werewere diagnoseddiagnosed withwith LegionellaLegionella diseasedisease (bacterial(bacterial lunglung infection)infection) inin aa 3030 dayday periodperiod
RESULT:RESULT: SettledSettled forfor totaltotal sumsum ofof $$ 5.25.2 millionmillion dollarsdollars
43 JeffersonJefferson CountyCounty threethree fingerfinger amputationamputation
SafetySafety featurefeature removedremoved fromfrom aa rotaryrotary feederfeeder duringduring temporarytemporary changechange toto premises.premises. EmployeeEmployee knewknew ofof changechange butbut stillstill gotgot handhand caughtcaught inin machine.machine.
RESULT:RESULT: PlaintiffPlaintiff verdictverdict $360,000,$360,000, butbut PlaintiffPlaintiff foundfound 50%50% responsible.responsible.
44 Jefferson County slip and fall. Hurt knee, back and hit head.
Business invitee. Area had been recently mopped with a greasy mop. Employee testified that he told the asst manager that the mop was greasy but the asst manager used the greasy mop anyway. The asst manager had also been told that the floor appeared to be greasy but the store was opened anyway.
RESULT: Plaintiff verdict, $30,000.00
45 McClennan County slip and fall at grocery store
Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a piece of onion in the grocery store. She acknowledged that she did not know how long the piece of onion had been on the floor; how it got on the floor; where it came from; or whether anyone employed by the store knew it was there before the accident happened and failed to do anything about it, nor did she know anyone who knew any of these things.
RESULT: Summary Judgment for Defendant. There was no evidence that the Defendant knew or should have known that the hazard existed before the accident occurred.
46