562 S.W.3d 98
Tex. App.2018Background
- Hillis owned and operated a bed-and-breakfast (B&B) and rented a nearby cabin to McCall, who also performed occasional maintenance at the B&B at Hillis’s invitation.
- McCall observed brown recluse spiders inside the B&B on multiple occasions and told Hillis; Hillis instructed the housekeeper and occasionally sprayed or used "bombs," but had no regular pest-control schedule.
- While repairing a leak under a sink inside the B&B, McCall was bitten by a brown recluse and sued Hillis for premises liability.
- Hillis moved for traditional summary judgment solely arguing the doctrine of ferae naturae absolved him of any duty to warn or make the premises safe.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hillis; McCall appealed, arguing Hillis failed to prove absence of duty as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hillis owed a duty to warn or make safe under premises-liability principles given a spider bite | McCall: bite occurred inside an artificial structure (B&B) and Hillis knew or should have known of spider risk, so duty existed | Hillis: ferae naturae bars liability for injuries from wild/indigenous animals unless owner reduced to possession or introduced them | Reversed — genuine fact issues: bite occurred inside an artificial structure and evidence Hillis knew of spiders, so Hillis failed to establish no duty as a matter of law |
| Whether the doctrine of ferae naturae automatically negates duty when the injuring animal is indigenous | McCall: ferae naturae is not absolute; duty can arise for animals in artificial structures when owner knows or should know of unreasonable risk | Hillis: doctrine precludes duty absent possession/harboring or introduction of the animal | Court: doctrine does not automatically bar duty; if animal is in an artificial structure and owner knew/should have known of unreasonable risk, duty may exist |
| Whether summary judgment could be affirmed on plaintiff’s knowledge of spiders (invited defense) | McCall: not applicable as Hillis didn’t move on that ground | Hillis: McCall was aware of spiders, so no duty to warn | Not considered — Hillis did not assert plaintiff’s knowledge in his motion, so court refused to affirm on that ground |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under movant’s presented grounds | McCall: factual disputes on duty preclude summary judgment | Hillis: presented only ferae naturae defense | Held: movant failed to show absence of duty under the asserted defense; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Nami, 498 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2016) (explains ferae naturae limits and exceptions where owner reduced animals to possession or introduced them)
- Nicholson v. Smith, 986 S.W.2d 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (landowner may be negligent for indigenous animals found in artificial structures when owner knows or should know of unreasonable risk)
- Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Jenkins, 478 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2016) (premises-liability duty to make premises safe or warn invitees)
- United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. 2017) (standard for owner’s duty to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risk known or discoverable by ordinary care)
- First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2018) (de novo standard of review for traditional summary judgment)