414 S.W.3d 316
Tex. App.2013Background
- Scotsman owned the MOU located on Chappell’s El Paso land; CMHS stored/road-ready the MOU under Scotsman’s direction.
- Scotsman hired Double A to refurbish the MOU into two classrooms on-site; Double A’s work did not include inspecting or repairing the air-conditioning unit.
- Scotsman had limited supervision over Double A and did not control the refurbishment methods beyond progress inspection and reporting; Double A used its own crew and directed its on-site supervisor.
- Double A completed the refurbishment about Oct. 12, 2004; approximately one week later, the air-conditioning unit fell on Damon Chappell while he retrieved a dog.
- Chappells sued for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, negligent activity, negligent hiring/supervision, and breach of contract; trial court granted summary judgment on all but the negligent activity claim and then directed verdict on the negligent activity claim; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises liability duty and knowledge | Chappells argue Scotsman/Double A owed a duty to keep the premises safe | Scotsman/Double A contend no knowledge/ no duty for premises liability | Premises liability claim fails as a matter of law |
| Directed verdict on negligent activity | Chappells contend there was evidence of contemporaneous activity causing injury | No contemporaneous activity by Scotsman/Double A caused injury | Directed verdict proper; no evidence of contemporaneous activity proximately causing injury |
| New trial denial | Trial court abused discretion in denying new trial | No abuse; rulings supported by record | denial of new trial affirmed |
| Sanitization of record and evidentiary issues | Evidence about disability and voir dire should have been admitted/ considered | Sanitized record; error harmless | Evidentiary issues deemed harmless and unresolved on appeal |
| Miscellaneous evidentiary/ conduct issues | Assertions of voir dire restrictions and bias | Court’s conduct within permissible control | Harmless; not dispositive to outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (premises liability elements and duty for invitees)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. 2003) (licensee vs invitee distinctions; actual knowledge)
- Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence summary judgment specificity requirements)
- State Dept. of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.1992) (premises liability standards for licensees and invitees)
- City of Dallas v. Thompson, 210 S.W.3d 601 (Tex.2006) (premises liability and duty assessment in general)
- Dow Chemical v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.2001) (trial court discretion and control in courtroom)