576 S.W.3d 844
Tex. App.2019Background
- Sterling Wilson fell in a hospital hallway in September 2016 while attempting to pass between a large, stationary floor‑buffing machine and the wall; he testified he slipped on water but did not know how long it had been there.
- The floor technician, Jerry Hill, had drained the machine, checked it was dry, was moving it (not operating it) when he encountered Wilson, and testified he saw no spill before or after the fall and that the area had not been cleaned yet.
- Plaintiffs sued Northwest Texas Healthcare System alleging negligence, premises liability, and gross negligence based on the placement of the machine and liquid on the floor; gross negligence was not pursued on appeal.
- Northwest moved for traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment arguing plaintiffs’ negligence theory was barred as a matter of law and that there was no evidence of actual notice, causal activity, or that Wilson lacked knowledge of the condition.
- The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds; the court of appeals reviewed de novo and considered both traditional and no‑evidence grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue hearing in Randall County was improper | Hearing on motion to compel in Randall County was improper because suit filed in Potter County | 181st Dist. Court may hear preliminary matters in any county of the district under Tex. Gov’t Code §24.361(b) | Court held hearing in Randall County was proper; no reversible error |
| Whether plaintiffs’ negligence (negligent activity) claim survives summary judgment | Wilson argues evidence (machine + water) allows negligence claim / jury question | Northwest argues injury arose from a premises condition, not contemporaneous negligent activity; negligent‑activity claim is barred | Court held negligence claim barred as a matter of law because allegations pertain to a dangerous condition, not negligent activity |
| Whether Wilson is an invitee or licensee for premises‑liability duty analysis | Plaintiffs claim Wilson was an invitee visiting his wife | Northwest argues Wilson was a licensee (visitor without mutual business benefit) | Court held Wilson was a licensee (no mutual benefit/business with hospital) |
| Whether there is evidence of actual knowledge or lack of plaintiff knowledge to defeat no‑evidence SJ on premises liability | Plaintiffs rely on Wilson’s testimony and expert who attributes fall to water and machine | Northwest points to Hill’s testimony of no observed spill, drained machine, and no evidence hospital knew of liquid; Wilson saw the machine | Court held plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue that Northwest had actual knowledge of liquid and that Wilson lacked knowledge; no‑evidence SJ properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishes negligent activity from premises‑condition theories)
- H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Warner, 845 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. 1992) (premises‑condition claims governed by premises liability principles)
- Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co., 357 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (artful pleading cannot convert premises condition into negligent activity)
- Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2016) (licensee standard requires actual knowledge of danger by owner)
- Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (guidance on evaluating summary‑judgment evidence)