Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co.
357 S.W.3d 157
Tex. App.2011Background
- Wyckoff, as heir and representative, sues Fuller Contracting and West for injuries suffered on West's premises during a party.
- Injury occurred on a narrow, dark wine-cellar stairway; Wyckoff alleges inadequate lighting, lack of hand/guard rails, and noncompliance with building codes.
- Wyckoff claims she was a licensee invited to attend the party and was not warned about the dangerous condition.
- Fuller Contracting moves for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment claiming no duty and no dangerous condition; attached evidence shows it no longer owns or controls the house.
- West also moves for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment asserting no duty and lack of willful or negligent conduct; attaches Wyckoff and West’s deposition evidence.
- Trial court grants both summary judgments; the appellate court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Fuller Contracting and West owe Wyckoff a duty for a premises defect? | Wyckoff argues Fuller/West breached duties as creators/owners of dangerous condition. | Fuller/West contend no duty owed where defendant knew or Wyckoff knew the condition; premises liability limitations apply. | No duty owed to Wyckoff. |
| Is the injury a premises-defect claim or governed by activity-based negligence or products liability? | Wyckoff asserts various theories including premises defect and negligent design. | Courts apply premises liability; cannot convert to products liability or other theories. | Premises liability applies; no other theories sustain liability. |
| Did Wyckoff have actual knowledge of the dangerous condition negating a duty? | Wyckoff contends she relied on owners/contractors to warn or fix and lacked knowledge of the risk. | Wyckoff had actual knowledge (lighting, no handrail, uneven steps) before descending. | Wyckoff had actual knowledge; no duty owed. |
| Does violation of building codes create negligence per se or a duty issue for premises liability? | Building-code violation shows dangerous condition and duty to correct. | Code violations are not the duty analysis for premises liability; only evidence of reasonable care. | Code violation not controlling for duty; not to revive liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. 2003) (actual knowledge bar to duty where plaintiff knew of dangerous condition)
- Osadchy v. S. Methodist Univ., 232 S.W.3d 844 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007) (plaintiff's knowledge negates licensor's duty)
- McDaniel v. Cont'l Apartments Joint Venture, 887 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994) (premises liability principles govern defects; adroit pleadings don't alter duty law)
- Lefmark Mgmt. Co. v. Old, 946 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.1997) (duty generally ends after transfer of property absent dangerous-condition creator)
- H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Warner, 845 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.1992) (premises liability framework for licensees and invitees)