Texas Court of Appeals Decisions on Premises Liability and Negligent Entrustment Cases, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Texas Court of Appeals Decisions on Premises Liability and Negligent Entrustment Cases and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! Following information excerpted by Pamela S. Evers, Assoc. Prof. of Business Law, University of North Carolina Wilmington, from materials available through the State of Texas Bar Association. For educational purposes only. Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger (also listed under Litigation: Personal Injury) Supreme Court of Texas - Austin June 15, 2007 - 05-0722 Premises Defect Not Shown To Be Unreasonably Dangerous. Alger exited through the front door of Brinson Ford, where a pedestrian ramp leads to the parking lot. Although there were handrails along most of the ramp, as it sloped down to ground level, a small portion of the ramp extended beyond the handrails to the sidewalk. The highest point of this unrailed section was four inches above the sidewalk, and it was marked by yellow paint along the ramp’s edges and around the parking space next to the ramp. The ramp is the dealership’s main entrance, and Brinson Ford had no record that anyone had ever fallen from it in the nearly ten years between the business’s opening and Alger’s fall. Alger testified that when she reached the point where the handrails ended, she thought the ramp had ended too. When she turned to walk toward her car, Alger stepped off the unrailed portion of the ramp and fell. The trial court granted summary judgment for Brinson Ford. The court of appeals reversed. Held: Reversed and rendered for Brinson Ford. As a matter of law, the ramp at issue in this case did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The area of the ramp without handrails met applicable safety standards, and was further outlined in yellow striping that the dealership added, which is a common method used to indicate a change in elevation. The highest point of the downward- sloping unrailed portion of the ramp was four inches, less than the height of an average step. No other customer visiting the property over a ten-year period had ever been injured by the ramp, nor has the dealership received complaints about the ramp’s safety. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the dealership’s favor. Premises Liability. Plaintiff’s Burden Of Proof. The plaintiff in a premises liability case must establish that the premises owner knew, or should have known, of a dangerous condition on the premises, that presented an unreasonable risk of harm, and that the condition proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The duty a premises owner owes to its invitees is not that of an insurer. That is to say, a condition is not unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not foolproof. A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it presents an unreasonable risk of harm. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayes (also listed under Litigation: Personal Injury) Supreme Court of Texas - Austin June 15, 2007 - 04-0993 Summary Judgment. Appellate Court To Determine Whether Fair-Minded Jurors Could Differ In Their Conclusions. An appellate court, reviewing a summary judgment, must consider whether reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ in their conclusions in light of all of the evidence presented. Summary Judgment. Court Of Appeals Erred In Considering Only The Evidence Favorable To The Nonmovant, Ignoring Undisputed Evidence That Cannot Be Disregarded. The employee-Adams had permission to take a D-company truck home, and was available by pager 24 hours each day. He could be required to make deliveries at the beginning and/or ending of his work day. He went to his father’s home to sleep, awoke, and drove to get cigarettes for his father. planning to return to his father’s home. Adams fell asleep at the wheel, and hit the plaintiff’s truck. Adams may have received workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant-employer-Goodyear. Assuming all evidence favorable to the nonmovant (Mayes) was true, and indulging every reasonable inference, and resolving any doubts in his favor, the court of appeals held there existed sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether Adams was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. 144 S.W.3d 50. Held: The court of appeals erred in applying the wrong standard of review. There is no conflicting evidence, or conflicting set of inferences, to raise a genuine issue of material fact over whether, at the time of the accident, Adams was acting in furtherance of Goodyear’s business or for the accomplishment of the object for which Goodyear hired him. The court of appeals erred in considering only the evidence favorable to Mayes, ignoring undisputed evidence in the record that cannot be disregarded. Respondeat Superior. Extent Of Liability. Employer Not Responsible For Deviation. Generally, a person has no duty to control the conduct of another. Under the theory of respondeat superior, however, an employer may be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee, if the employee’s actions are within the course and scope of his employment. An employer is liable for its employee’s tort, only when the tortious act falls within the scope of the employee’s general authority, in furtherance of the employer’s business, and for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was hired. The employee’s acts must be of the same general nature as the conduct authorized or incidental to the conduct authorized to be within the scope of employment. Accordingly, if an employee deviates from the performance of his duties for his own purposes, the employer is not responsible for what occurs during that deviation.