Mark Johnston v. OilTanking Houston, LP, 367 S.W.3d 412

Johnston was injured March 2008 while wiring programmable logic controllers for Rodgers at Oiltanking Houston premises, fell from a cable tray into a concrete pit, and did not wear a safety harness due to equipment unavailability.
Rodgers was an independent contractor under a long‑standing Master Service Agreement with Oiltanking; Oiltanking was the premises owner/general contractor with some contractual rights.
Johnston sued Oiltanking for negligence alleging dangerous conditions and activities on the worksite; Oiltanking answered and moved for traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Oiltanking on May 20, 2011; Johnston argued that Oiltanking retained control over the premises and thus owed a duty to exercise reasonable care.
The court analyzed whether Oiltanking retained a contract‑based right of control over Rodgers’ work; it held that the mere right to schedule timing/sequence is not sufficient to impose a duty absent control of the operative details and a nexus to the injury.
The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding no duty existed and there was no nexus between the retained control and Johnston’s injuries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oiltanking owed a duty to Johnston based on contractually retained control.	Johnston contends the master service agreement gave Oiltanking control over timing/sequence of Rodgers’ work, creating a duty.	Oiltanking did not retain control over the means/methods/details of Rodgers’ work; timing/sequence control is not enough for liability.	No duty; contract did not retain control over operative details; no nexus to injury; summary judgment affirmed.

Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1985) (premises owner/general contractor liability requires retained control over the contractor’s work)
Elliott-Williams Co. v. Diaz, 9 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 1999) (right of control, not actual exercise, creates duty when it concerns the contractor’s methods)
Pollard v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 759 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1988) (right of control is decisive for duty when tied to safe performance)
Bright v. Koch Refin. Co., 89 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. 2003) (contractual control must extend to operative details; general rights insufficient)
Khan v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 138 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2004) (nexus required between retained control and injury; safety rules alone do not create broad duty)