Allen Keller Co. v. Foreman, 343 S.W.3d 420

Gillespie County hired Allen Keller Company to perform road construction work designed by O'Malley Engineers.
Contract required absolute compliance with contract documents and prohibited Keller from altering terms without County/O'Malley changes; engineers acted as county agents on site.
Upon completion, O'Malley certified work; the County accepted and paid Keller.
Keller excavated an embankment and installed a concrete pilot channel, widening a gap between a guardrail and the embankment to about fifteen feet.
In 2003, after project completion, Foreman and companions died when their vehicle passed through the guardrail gap at night on the one-lane span; the Foremans sued Keller among others.
The trial court granted summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed on several grounds, prompting review to determine Keller’s duty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Keller owe a duty to rectify the dangerous condition?	Foreman: duty to rectify exists when dangerous condition results from work.	Keller: no duty to rectify due to absolute contract compliance and lack of discretion.	Keller owed no duty to rectify.
Did Keller owe a duty to warn the public of the dangerous condition?	Foreman: contractor may warn when premises owner lacks warning; public at risk.	Keller had no duty to warn because it did not own/control premises and owner/engineers were aware.	Keller owed no duty to warn.

Strakos v. Gehring, 360 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1962) (distinguishes duties when contractor has discretion vs. when plans are strictly followed)
Glade v. Dietert, 295 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1956) (government-right-of-way responsibility limits contractor liability)
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (duty is a question of law balancing risk, foreseeability, and burden)
Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. 2009) (duty analysis guided by restatement principles and policy considerations)