Sandra Ledezma, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Abdon Leyva v. Sean F. Turner, 01-18-00700-CV

Leyva died after a tree limb broke while he was removing Christmas lights from a tree on Sean Turner’s property; Leyva was not wearing a harness that was available and Turner was not on the premises.
Turner had hired Zamora as a yard maintenance worker; Zamora and Leyva had installed Turner’s lights the prior year and Zamora was paid to install and remove the lights in 2016–17.
Turner provided lights and general placement instructions but left safety methods and equipment to Zamora; Zamora testified they had and sometimes used a harness but did not use it while removing the lights the day of the accident.
Zamora testified the branch that broke may have died after a recent freeze but that neither he nor Turner knew the branch was dead; Zamora also said the death of the branch was not observable without putting weight on it.
Appellants (Leyva’s widow and children) sued Turner for negligence and premises liability; Turner moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, which the trial court granted; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Turner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous tree condition (premises liability)	Turner knew or should have known the branch was dangerous and failed to warn/make safe	No evidence Turner knew or should have known the branch was dead or dangerous; danger was not discoverable by reasonable inspection	No evidence of actual or constructive knowledge; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Turner is liable under a negligent-activity theory for directing or controlling work that caused injury	Turner directed work or exercised control, creating dangerous work methods	Turner was not present, did not engage in contemporaneous negligent activity, and did not supervise Leyva that day	No evidence of contemporaneous negligent activity by Turner; no-evidence summary judgment affirmed
Whether Turner owed a duty to inspect his trees before Zamora/Leyva removed lights	Owner should inspect and warn of hidden hazards prior to work	No legal duty to perform such an inspection is established; no evidence of duty here	Court declined to impose a duty to inspect; appellants point to no authority imposing one

City of Richardson v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., 539 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. 2018) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (owner not insurer; duty depends on actual/constructive knowledge)
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (elements of invitee premises-liability claim)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (constructive knowledge assessed by how long condition existed)
Univ. of Tex.–Pan Am. v. Aguilar, 251 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. 2008) (actual knowledge requires awareness of an existing danger, not merely possibility)
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishes negligent-activity claims from premises-liability claims)
Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Jenkins, 478 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2016) (injury from activity vs. condition dictates applicable theory of recovery)