Margaret Kinsley, Individually and on Behalf of Laddie Frances Kinsley v. Cartwright's Ranch House, LLC and John Clayton Cartwright, 02-16-00149-CV

Background

Margaret and Laddie Kinsley (invitees) ate at Cartwright’s Ranch House (CRH). After exiting, Laddie fell while negotiating his walker off a curb in front of CRH and later died; Margaret was injured when she fell on him.
CRH had outdoor patio furniture placed on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant; CRH’s owner moved some tables after a complaint (video surveillance recorded the events).
The Kinsleys entered via the front door and exited straight to their car parked near the curb; they did not traverse the patio furniture area when leaving.
Margaret sued CRH and its owner for negligence, negligence per se (ordinance and Texas Accessibility Standards), and a statutory civil-rights claim; a jury returned a take‑nothing verdict and the trial court entered judgment on it.
On appeal Margaret raised (1) jury charge error—an “open and obvious” instruction she said shifted burden improperly—and (2) trial-court error in granting a directed verdict on her negligence-per-se claim. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inclusion of an instruction that the dangerous condition must not be “open and obvious” (instruction (d)) in the negligence questions was erroneous and burden-shifting	Kinsley said the jury instruction improperly required her to disprove that the condition (or risk) was open and obvious; if any instruction was given it should have focused on whether the risk of harm — not the condition itself — was open and obvious	Cartwright argued any instructional error was harmless because (a) if the dangerous condition was the patio furniture, that condition did not proximately cause the fall, and (b) if the dangerous condition was the curb, CRH did not own/control it and owed no duty	Court held any error was harmless: as a matter of law the patio furniture did not cause the fall, and the curb was not owned/controlled by CRH, so no duty existed; jury charge issue did not require reversal
Whether the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on negligence per se based on alleged ordinance and Texas Accessibility Standards violations	Kinsley argued CRH obstructed the public sidewalk and violated permitting/accessibility rules, creating negligence per se that caused the injury	Cartwright argued (and produced evidence) that there was no causal link: the Kinsleys exited straight to the curb and did not contact furniture; no evidence CRH’s alleged statutory/ordinance violations proximately caused the fall	Court held directed verdict proper: no legally sufficient evidence that any ordinance/statute violation proximately caused Laddie’s death or Margaret’s injury

Key Cases Cited

Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (elements of premises‑liability claim)
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (premises‑liability principles)
LMB, Ltd. v. Moreno, 201 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. 2006) (but‑for/causation and substantial factor test)
Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t, 8 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 1999) (plaintiff must prove defendant owned/controlled premises to impose duty)
Austin v. Kroger, 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015) (discussion of open‑and‑obvious risk and necessary‑use doctrine)
Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2003) (code violation alone does not prove causation)
Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (appellate harmless‑error standard for jury charge error)