Golden Corral Corporation D/B/A Golden Corral and Corral Group, Incorporated v. Cynthia Trigg
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 10595
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Golden Corral warned of a wet floor using a tall yellow sign in front of the buffet area where Trigg fell.
- Trigg stepped from carpet to tile; her left foot slipped toward the wet area and struck the sign before hitting the floor.
- Trigg testified she did not see the warning before the fall, though video shows the sign was visible in the area.
- Video and testimony showed the sign was placed about 20 minutes before the fall; Golden Corral had a policy to place mats in high-risk areas and to clean spills.
- There was evidence the dishwasher area near the fall lacked mats, and water could have been tracked into the area; the jury found negligence by Golden Corral but awarded no negligence to Trigg.
- After trial, the court rendered judgment for Trigg; the court of appeals reverses and renders, finding Golden Corral’s warning adequate and Trigg recoveries none.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warning adequate as a matter of law? | Trigg argues warning was inadequate due to placement. | Golden Corral contends the warning was adequate since a tall sign was visible in the area. | Yes; warning adequate; judgment for Golden Corral. |
| Does the evidence support negligence for failure to warn or make area safe? | Trigg contends lack of adequate warning and unsafe conditions caused the fall. | Golden Corral argues the warning sufficed and area safety was discharged by warning. | No; evidence conclusively shows adequate warning discharged duty. |
| Did the trial court err by not dismissing future medical expense issues given sufficiency of warning? | Trigg asserts future medical expenses are improperly evaluated. | Golden Corral argues such issues are unnecessary where warning is adequate. | Not necessary to address; court rendered for defense on the warning issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- TXI Operations, L.P. v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2009) (premises duty discharged by warning or making premises safe)
- Bill’s Dollar Store, Inc. v. Bean, 77 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (duty discharged by warning; premises owner’s response to known risk)
- State v. Williams, 940 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. 1996) (warning may discharge duty; not necessarily required to be most prominent)
- Brooks v. PRH Inv., Inc., 303 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (conclusive warning bars negligence as a matter of law)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. 1993) (warning can be adequate even if not perfectly prominent)
- City of Keller v. Williams, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (reasonable evidence supports jury verdict when warning visible)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (duty to reduce or eliminate risk when knowledge exists)