622 S.W.3d 824
Tex.2021Background
- San Lorenzo Church hosts an annual multi-day festival and rented a booth to the El Paso 4‑H Leaders Association for a flat fee; Church received no share of 4‑H sales.
- 4‑H supplied its own equipment (including a propane tank) and staffed the enclosed booth with volunteer workers; interior was off‑limits to the public.
- On the festival’s third day a fire erupted in the 4‑H booth; five volunteers (four teenagers and one adult) were injured.
- The volunteers’ families sued the Church and Heritage (alleged propane filler); after a month‑long trial a jury found the volunteers were licensees and returned verdicts finding no negligence by the Church or Heritage; trial court rendered a take‑nothing judgment.
- The court of appeals reversed as to the Church, holding the volunteers were invitees as a matter of law and remanding for a new trial; the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4‑H volunteers were invitees or licensees of the Church | Volunteers were invitees because 4‑H and the Church mutually benefited economically from food sales and volunteers enabled that benefit | Volunteers worked for 4‑H, which paid a flat booth fee; volunteers benefitted 4‑H not the Church, so they were licensees | Volunteers were licensees as a matter of law; persons volunteering for a third party generally don’t render the property owner an invitee |
| Whether Church breached duty by retaining control or knowing of danger (premises liability) | Church had control over festival and knew of unsafe propane practices, so breached duty to invitees/volunteers | Church did not know of any specific dangerous condition (no evidence Church knew of a propane hazard) and owed only licensee duty | Jury finding that Church did not breach its duty to licensees was supported; Families failed to conclusively establish actual knowledge or breach |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Heritage filled the propane tank (causation) | Testimony (Diller) establishes Heritage filled the tank and thus caused fire | Testimony conflicted; no receipts and Denman employee did not recall filling the tank; credibility for jury to decide | Legal‑sufficiency challenge fails—the record does not conclusively establish Heritage filled the tank; jury could credit conflicting testimony |
| Alleged trial errors: improper summation and evidentiary rulings (experts, demonstratives, jury argument about "unavoidable accident") | Church counsel improperly argued an unpled unavoidable‑accident defense; various evidentiary rulings prejudiced Families | Counsel’s remark that jury could find nobody responsible was legally proper; evidentiary rulings did not probably cause an improper judgment | No reversible error: counsel’s statement was permissible; any evidentiary errors were harmless given trial length and record |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015) (defines invitee and licensee duties under Texas law)
- Cowart v. Meeks, 111 S.W.2d 1105 (Tex. Comm'n Op. 1938) (establishes mutual‑business/pecuniary‑benefit test for invitee status)
- Olivier v. Snowden, 426 S.W.2d 545 (Tex. 1968) (visitor’s presence must confer potential pecuniary benefit to owner to be an invitee)
- Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2016) (states duty owed licensees: warn or make safe known dangers)
- Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (standard for sustaining jury findings against legal‑sufficiency challenges)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (principles on reviewing jury fact‑findings and witness credibility)