E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company v. Robert Earl Roye and Diane Roye
447 S.W.3d 48
Tex. App.2014Background
- DuPont owned a large LaPorte chemical plant; Roye was seriously burned by hot condensate from a steam system at the plant.
- The pipeline/steam-trap system included French drains under some traps; two drains were installed, four traps discharged condensate onto open ground.
- DuPont sold the THF unit to Invista in 2004; Invista became a shared occupant with non-exclusive easements over the plant site.
- Roye, an Invista employee, was injured when a pallet over a ground ledge collapsed into a pool of 400-degree condensate near steam trap 5.
- Roye sued DuPont for premises liability and ordinary negligence; the jury found Roye an invitee and DuPont liable on both theories, leading to a judgment reduced by settlement credits.
- The appellate court sustained DuPont’s challenge to the jury’s submission of an ordinary negligence theory and to thePremises liability duty thereunder, reversing and rendering take-nothing judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordinary negligence was missubmitted | Roye; DuPont created/design caused hazard | Premises liability governs; ordinary negligence not proper | Granted; ordinary negligence improperly submitted |
| Whether DuPont owed a duty for a concealed hazard | DuPont created/ knew of concealed erosion risk | No evidence of knowledge; no duty | Granted; no duty found; premises liability barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (owner-created hazards may raise an inference of knowledge; jury decides duty)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (constructive knowledge from developing hazards analyzed via reasonable inspection)
- Moritz v. Gen. Elec. Co., 257 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2008) (duty to inspect premises and warn of concealed hazards known or knowable)
- Grayson v. Anselmo, 2008 WL 660433 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (premises liability involving owner-created hazard; Keetch approach cited)
- Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (distinguishes malfeasance vs nonfeasance in premises liability)