Tracy GRIFFIN, Appellant v. SHELL OIL COMPANY and CH2M Hill IDC Facilities, Appellees
401 S.W.3d 150
Tex. App.2011Background
- Griffin sued Shell and CH2M for injuries from a June 2007 fall in a dim, water-filled storage room in a Shell building basement.
- Griffin was employed by CFI Mechanical, Inc., a subcontractor, at the Shell building.
- The storage room had standing water, poor lighting, and improperly stored materials, and was used by multiple contractors.
- Shell owned the building; CH2M was the project manager/general contractor overseeing the project.
- Griffin alleged negligent activity and premises defects, asserting Shell and CH2M failed to warn, inspect, or protect him; the trial court granted summary judgments for Shell and CH2M; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent-activity claims viability? | Griffin argues Shell/CH2M retained control of the activity and owed a duty. | Shell/CH2M contend only premises-defect theories were raised and no duty on activity. | Griffin's negligent-activity claims survived; trial court erred in granting summary judgment. |
| Shell's premises-defect duty and concealment? | Griffin contends Shell controlled the storage room and had to warn about concealed hazards. | Shell argues no concealed defect or that Griffin knew of conditions negates duty. | Fact issue on concealment exists; summary judgment improper. |
| CH2M's premises-defect duty and control controversy? | Griffin argues CH2M, as general contractor, controlled the storage room and duties. | CH2M contends it did not control the premises; not a general contractor for the space. | Fact issue as to CH2M's control; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moritz v. Gen. Elec. Co., 257 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2008) (distinguishes negligent activity vs premises defect; duty when control exists)
- Olivo v. City of Fort Worth, 952 S.W.2d 527 (Tex. 1997) (premises defects; owner/occupier duty to warn for concealed hazards)
- Lamb v. Shell Chem. Co., 493 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. 1973) (premises-defect duty when owner/contractor controls premises; hidden hazards)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Bright, 89 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2002) (premises-defect created by contractor work; no duty to warn for defects caused by contractor's activity)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2008) (clarifies duties for negligent-activity vs premises-defect theories)