Martin Rodriguez v. Cemex, Inc.Martin Rodriguez v. Cemex, Inc.
Martin Rodriguez filed this premises liability suit against Cemex, Inc. (Cemex), alleging he was injured while working at a cement plant that was owned and operated by Cemex. In a traditional motion for summary judgment, Cemex alleged that Rodriguez lacked evidence establishing that Cemex owed him a duty of care given that he was injured while performing his work as an employee of an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cemex. We reverse.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Parties’ Relationship
Cemex owns and operates a cement plant in Odessa, Texas, known as the Cemex-Odessa plant (hereinafter the “Plant“), which is open 24 hours a day, allowing approximately a hundred tractor-trailer trucks to come onto the premises to fill up with cement every day.1 Union Logistics frequented the plant as an independent contractor hired by Cemex and would send its own employees to fill and deliver loads of cement on behalf of Cemex‘s customers. Pursuant to its standard procedures, Cemex had trained Union Logistics’ owner, Tony Franco,2 on the Plant‘s operations, and in turn, Franco was responsible for training his own employees.3
The Plant‘s Operations
At the time of Rodriguez‘s injury, the Plant had a dual nature tower where drivers filled their trucks with a variety of cement products. The tower consisted of two separate platforms suspended on each side, one to be used as an entrance to the
Thereafter, the driver would move his truck to a position for loading cement into the hatch. After positioning his truck for loading, the driver would once again exit his truck to meet with Cemex employees to advise them of the type of cement needed. Thereafter, a Cemex employee known as a “bulk loader” would fill the load from a control room. Once the fill was complete, the driver would return to his vehicle to move it to the exit side of the platform, where he would be required to lower the exit platform onto the top of his truck and use the platform to walk back to the hatch of his truck to close it. Once he closed the hatch, the driver then raised the exit platform back into its upright position, secured it into place, then returned to his truck to exit the Plant.
The Accident
On May 11, 2012, the day of Rodriguez‘s accident, Union Logistics had hired Rodriguez to fill a load of cement at the Plant, and had also sent another employee, Alfredo Armendariz, to the Plant to fill a load in a separate truck.4 While Rodriguez walked on the entrance side of the platform to open the hatch on his truck, Armendariz had already advanced to the exit side of the tower, and he was in the process of closing the hatch on his truck. After Armendariz lifted the exit platform off his truck, he failed to secure the platform in the upright position causing it to fall back onto his truck. Thereafter, Armendariz drove away with the exit platform on top of his truck, not aware that he dragged it with him, causing the entire tower to “move,” “twist,” and destabilize with motion. Due to the movement, Rodriguez‘s leg became wedged between the entrance platform and the top of his trailer, which crushed his ankle.
At the time of the accident, there were no Cemex employees immediately near the tower, and none witnessed the accident. However, after a Cemex employee heard screaming, he and another employee looked to the platform and observed that Rodriguez‘s leg was pinned by the platform; they assisted Rodriguez until EMS arrived to transport him to a nearby medical center.
Following Rodriguez‘s accident, upon the recommendation of Alton Ray Crumley, a supervisor at the Plant, Cemex implemented safety measures at the Plant to help prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future. For example, Cemex made the decision to only allow one truck at a time to use the tower. Then, signs were posted warning that only one truck at a time could use the tower. Later, Cemex redesigned its facilities. At the time of this suit, Cemex used a tower design that only allowed one truck to use the tower at a time, referred to as a “separate single access platform.”
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against Union Logistics, Armendariz, and Cemex. In his claim against Cemex, Rodriguez alleged that Cemex had created a “premises defect”
Cemex‘s Motion for Summary Judgment
Subsequently, Cemex filed a traditional motion for summary judgment contending that Rodriguez had no evidence to support its claim that Cemex owed him a duty of care that it had breached. In its motion, Cemex characterized Rodriguez as being an employee of an independent contractor arguing that a premises owner only owes a duty to an employee of an independent contractor on its premises to either rectify or warn the employee about a hidden defect the owner knew or should have known existed on its premises. Cemex argued that the “irrefutable summary judgment evidence” established that there was no defect, “hidden or otherwise,” on its premises that caused Rodriguez‘s injuries, and that instead, Armendariz‘s negligence was the sole cause of the accident.
In his response to Cemex‘s motion for summary judgment, Rodriguez argued that the hidden defect was the lurking danger posed by the dual use nature of the tower itself, and the fact that the tower could become unstable by the actions of one driver while another was using it. Rodriguez further argued that he had raised a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Cemex had “actual knowledge” of this allegedly dangerous condition on its property based on evidence that Cemex was aware that several prior incidents had occurred at the Plant during which the tower had become destabilized. Rodriguez attached two incident reports, documenting two other instances that occurred at the Plant in March and May of 2012, in which drivers had failed to secure the platform in the upright position, and had dragged the platform with them as they attempted to exit the Plant, one of which occurred the day before Rodriguez‘s accident. According to the reports, which Crumley filled out in both instances, no one was hurt and there was no structural damage to the platform, although the driver‘s truck involved in the incident of May 2012 had sustained property damage.
Rodriguez also attached excerpts from Crumley‘s deposition testimony, as well as that of another Cemex employee, Jeremy Joseph, who both testified about their knowledge of the prior incidents. In his deposition, Joseph testified that he believed it was fairly common for drivers to become “entangled with the platform,” thereby causing the tower to become unstable, and that he believed such incidents occurred as often as every month, or at the least, every six months. In his deposition, Crumley also acknowledged that, although no one had been injured in the prior incidents, the platform appeared to have been damaged or bent from previous incidents of this nature. In addition, both Crumley and Joseph acknowledged that they had been aware of the risk of injury posed by allowing two trucks to use the platform at the same time, and that it would have been safer to allow only one truck at a time to
Rodriguez argued that this evidence raised a material question of fact regarding whether Cemex was aware that it had created an “obvious risk of unreasonable harm” on its premises by allowing two drivers to use its platform at the same time.5 He argued that, “[h]aving a metal platform weighing thousands of pounds spinning around poses an obvious risk of unreasonable harm,” and that Cemex had failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate that risk before Rodriguez‘s accident occurred.
The Trial Court‘s Judgment and Rodriguez‘s Motion for Rehearing
After the trial court granted Cemex‘s motion for summary judgment, Rodriguez filed a “motion for reconsideration or new trial,” attaching the same items of evidence described above to his motion.6 In his motion, Rodriguez argued that Cemex owed him “multiple duties,” such as the duty to provide a “safe workplace,” and not just the duty to warn of known, hidden defects. He further argued that even if Cemex only owed him a duty with respect to known, hidden defects, he had presented sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise a fact question with respect to whether Cemex had breached that duty by failing to warn him about the danger the dual use platform posed and failed to rectify that defect until after his accident occurred. At the hearing, the attorneys primarily argued over whether there was a known defect on the premises, and if so, whether it was hidden, or alternatively, whether it was open and obvious to Rodriguez at the time of his accident. Counsel for Rodriguez argued that prior incidents with the tower were known to Cemex, but not to Rodriguez. Rodriguez‘s counsel further argued that Rodriguez had no way of knowing about the prior incidents and/or about the danger the platform posed.
After holding a hearing on Rodriguez‘s motion, at which no new evidence was presented, the trial court denied Rodriguez‘s motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Rodriguez asserts two issues challenging the merits of the court‘s summary judgment ruling and a third issue challenging the court‘s subsequent denial of his motion for new trial. In Issue One, Rodriguez asserts that the court erred in granting Cemex‘s motion for summary judgment based on a no-duty defense that was abolished in Parker v. Highland Park.7 In Issue Two, Rodriguez asserts that summary judgment evidence demonstrated the existence of a pre-existing, concealed defect on the premises. We construe these first two issues as challenging the court‘s ruling on whether Cemex owed
Standard of Review
A defendant moving for traditional summary judgment pursuant to
ISSUES ONE AND TWO: Rodriguez Presented Sufficient Evidence to Raise a Question of Fact Regarding Whether Cemex Breached its Duty to Him
1. The Duty Owed to Rodriguez
The threshold issue we must decide in resolving Rodriguez‘s appeal is the nature of the duty owed by Cemex to Rodriguez. Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 209 (Tex. 2015); Saucedo v. Horner, 329 S.W.3d 825, 830 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.); see also TXI Operations, L.P. v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 763, 765 (Tex. 2009); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex. 2008). Like any other negligence action, a defendant in a premises case is liable only to the extent it owes the plaintiff a legal duty. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d at 217 (citing Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778, 782 (Tex. 2001) (“The plaintiff must produce evidence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by that breach.“)); Abalos v. Oil Dev. Co. of Tex., 544 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex. 1976) (“[A]ny plaintiff must prove the existence and violation of a legal duty owed to him by the defendant to establish tort liability.“)). If no duty exists, liability cannot be imposed. Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex. 2006).
The duty owed by a premises owner is determined by the status of the complaining party at the time and place of injury. See Pay & Save, Inc. v. Martinez, 452 S.W.3d 923, 926 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, pet. denied) (citing Scott & White Mem‘l Hosp. v. Fair, 310 S.W.3d 411, 412 (Tex. 2010)); see also Rosas v. Buddies’ Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex. 1975); Gill v. Rosas, 821 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1991, no pet.). As set forth above, the parties agree that Rodriguez was the employee of an independent contractor that was hired by Cemex to come to its plant to fill and deliver loads to Cemex customers. The Supreme Court has held that a premises owner owes a duty to the employee of an independent contractor to either rectify or warn about concealed or hidden defects on the owner‘s premises about which the owner knew or should have known. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d at 216 (“But Parker abolished a certain kind of no-duty defense, not all duty questions whatsoever.“); see also Austin, 465 S.W.3d at 202-03. This limited duty is the same duty that a premises owner owes to business invitees on the premises. Wallace v. ArcelorMittal Vinton, Inc., 536 S.W.3d 19, 23 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, pet. denied) (citing Austin, 465 S.W.3d at 203).
Rodriguez further contends that Cemex owed a broader, more general duty to make the premises safe for him, and/or to provide him with a “safe workplace.” We disagree. In Moritz, the Supreme Court held that a premises owner is liable to the employee of an independent contractor “only for claims arising from a pre-existing defect rather than from the contractor‘s work, and then only if the pre-existing defect was concealed. . . (emphasis added).” Moritz, 257 S.W.3d at 215. Further, although courts often refer to a premises owner‘s general duty to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe for invitees, this duty has been defined more specifically as the duty “to make safe or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not.” Wallace, 536 S.W.3d at 23 (citing Austin, 465 S.W.3d at 203); see also Chappell v. Allen, 414 S.W.3d 316, 323 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) (citing CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Tex. 2000)); see also Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401, 412 (Tex. 2009); Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss, 262 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex. 2008); Moritz, 257 S.W.3d at 216; Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas, 228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. 2007); Shell Oil Co. v. Khan, 138 S.W.3d 288, 295 (Tex. 2004).
Accordingly, we conclude that Cemex owed Rodriguez a duty to either rectify or warn him about unreasonably dangerous, hidden defects on its premises about which Cemex knew or should have known.
2. Rodriguez‘s Burden on Summary Judgment
Rodriguez further contends that once such a duty is established, the trial court
In Moritz, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument, and held that in a summary judgment proceeding, a plaintiff seeking to establish the existence of a material issue of fact in a premises liability case has the burden to prove not only that a defendant landowner owed him a duty, but that the defendant breached that duty as part of its case in chief, as these are key elements of a plaintiff‘s claim. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d. at 216 (quoting Dixon v. Van Waters & Rogers, 682 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex. 1984)); see also Wallace, 536 S.W.3d at 26 (it was the plaintiff‘s burden on summary judgment to establish not only that a duty existed, but that the defendant breached that duty); Chappell v. Allen, 414 S.W.3d 316, 323 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) (the threshold question in a premises liability case, as with any cause of action based on negligence, is the existence of and violation of a duty). As a premises owner may only breach its duty to the employee of an independent contractor if it failed to warn him about a concealed or hidden defect, it is the plaintiffs burden to come forward with evidence to establish that such a defect existed on the premises that caused his injuries; if the plaintiff does not meet this burden, the trial court may properly enter summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d. at 216-18 (trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of premises owner where plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor, claimed that he was injured in part because a ramp at the owner‘s warehouse did not contain handrails, which the Court determined, as a matter of law, was not a concealed defect, and was instead, an open and obvious condition).
Accordingly, we conclude that under Moritz, Rodriguez was required to come forward with evidence to establish that Cemex breached its duty to either rectify or warn him about unreasonably dangerous, hidden defects on its premises about which Cemex knew or should have known.8 We first consider whether the evidence raised a material question of fact on the issue of whether a dangerous condition existed at the Plant about which Cemex knew or should have known, and second, whether the evidence raised a question of fact on the issue of whether any such condition was concealed, or conversely whether the danger was open and obvious as a matter of law.
3. Evidence of the Prior Incidents at the Plant Constituted Sufficient Summary Judgment Evidence that an Allegedly Dangerous Condition Existed at the Plant
Rodriguez argues that he came forward with sufficient evidence to raise a
Cemex‘s response in part centers on the argument that all of the prior incidents—as well as Rodriguez‘s accident—were caused solely by the negligence or “inattention” of the drivers using the platform, rather than a defect in the platform itself, or in other words, the sole cause of these incidents was “independent contractor negligence.” According to Cemex, the dual use and design of the tower played no role in causing Rodriguez‘s accident or the prior incidents, and therefore cannot be considered a dangerous condition on the premises for purposes of establishing this element of Rodriguez‘s claim. We disagree.
As a preliminary matter, we note that although neither party discusses the issue of causation in any depth, causation is an essential element of a premises defect claim, and requires a showing that a hazardous condition on the property was both the cause in fact of the plaintiff‘s injuries, and that such injuries were foreseeable. See Brown v. State Dept. of Transp., 80 S.W.3d 594, 600 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000), aff‘d sub nom. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (citing Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sholl, 990 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.)). Cause in fact requires a showing that the hazardous condition was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff‘s injuries, i.e., that without the hazardous condition, the plaintiff‘s injuries would not have occurred. Id. (citing Sholl, 990 S.W.2d at 417); see also Brown v. Edwards Transfer Co., Inc., 764 S.W.2d 220, 223 (Tex. 1988) (cause in fact means that the negligent act at issue was a substantial factor in producing the injury, and without such negligence no harm would have resulted). Foreseeability, on the other hand, means that the plaintiff‘s injuries that resulted from the hazardous condition were of the “type that might reasonably have been anticipated” by the defendant premises owner. See Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 600 (citing Sholl, 990 S.W.2d at 417). While foreseeability means that the defendant, as a person of reasonable or ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the potential for injury to others, it does not require that the defendant should have foreseen the particular accident or injury which in fact occurs, or that he must anticipate exactly how the injury might result from a particular dangerous situation. Brown, 764 S.W.2d at 223-24. All that is required to satisfy the foreseeability requirement is that the plaintiff‘s injury be of such a general character that the defendant might have reasonably anticipated that the injuries could occur. Id. at 224.
In the present case, we find that Rodriguez‘s summary judgment evidence raised a genuine question of fact on the issue of whether the dual nature of the platform could be considered a proximate cause of Rodriguez‘s injuries. In reaching this conclusion, we note that there can be
could reasonably conclude that two factors, i.e., driver negligence and the tendency of the dual use nature of the tower to become unstable, were concurrent proximate causes of Rodriguez‘s accident. Rodriguez would not have been injured but for the combination of Armendariz‘s negligence, together with the instability of the platform, and therefore both factors can be considered as the cause in fact of Rodriguez‘s injuries.
Further, we conclude that the summary judgment evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine question of fact on the issue of whether Rodriguez‘s injuries were foreseeable. As set forth above, foreseeability is required to establish proximate cause, but it is also a key part of the analysis for determining whether a dangerous condition existed on the property for purposes of bringing a premises defect case. As the Supreme Court has recognized, in order to impose liability on a landowner in a premises defect case, a condition on its property must pose an “unreasonable risk of harm,” which in turn exists “when there is a ‘sufficient probability of a harmful event occurring that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen it or some similar event as likely to happen.‘” Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 556 (citing Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Assocs., 451 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. 1970)); accord City of El Paso v. Viel, 523 S.W.3d 876, 895 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.).
Under this approach, Texas courts have concluded that in certain situations, a jury may find that a reasonably prudent premises owner should have foreseen that a harmful event might occur on its premises due to a potentially dangerous condition, even if the event, in part, occurred as the result of another individual‘s conduct, whether negligent or not. This principle is illustrated in our sister court‘s holding in Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 600. In that case, the County had created a potentially dangerous condition on its roadway, due to the lack of lighting on a dangerous stretch of the road, which caused the plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle. Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 600. As the plaintiff exited his vehicle, he was struck and killed by another driver who also lost control of his vehicle shortly thereafter, and who was unable to see the plaintiff due to the darkened conditions. Id. at 597. In that case, the court held that the failure to maintain adequate lighting on the roadway constituted a premises defect, as it created “an environment in which accidents were more likely to occur.” Id. at 600. Therefore, although the County might not have been able to foresee that a third-party‘s conduct would combine with the dangerous conditions on the roadway to cause the plaintiff‘s death,
Similarly, numerous Texas courts have held that when a premises owner is aware that its invitees are using a structure on its premises in a negligent manner, which in turn creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others who are also using the premises, the owner may be found liable under a premises liability theory to allow the structure to remain on its premises despite being aware of the danger its use created. For example, in Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983), a store had a display bin containing grapes, which was configured in such a way that customers would often knock the grapes to the ground, creating a slipping danger to other customers. Id. at 294. The plaintiff in that case did in fact slip on a grape that was on the floor, thereby injuring himself, and sued the store owner on a premises liability theory. Id. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence that the store had been generally aware of the danger that the bin created due to the fact that grapes often fell to the ground, creating a “unusually hazardous and continual source of slippery material” on the floor on which customers could slip. Id. In finding this evidence to be sufficient to impose liability on the store owner, the Supreme Court held that the store‘s liability was dependent on “its knowledge of store conditions posing risks to customers and the failure to act reasonably in response to those risks . . . .” Id. at 297-98. Further, the Court recognized that the store owner did not have to be aware of the exact incident that led to the plaintiff‘s injuries, i.e., it did not need to be aware of the specific object that was on the floor at the time of the plaintiff‘s accident, only that it was, or should have been, aware of the generally dangerous condition that existed on its premises. Id. at 298; see also Nat‘l Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Erevia, 73 S.W.3d 518, 522-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (court affirmed judgment in favor of plaintiff store owner in premises liability case where evidence presented at trial supported a finding that owner was aware that customers were retrieving soda bottles stored in a barrel in such a manner that it caused ice to be spilled onto the floor, thereby causing a slipping danger to other customers); May v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CIV.A.3:94-CV-2810-P, 1997 WL 181537, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 1997) (court denied defendant‘s motion for summary judgment in premises liability case, where the summary judgment evidence raised a question of fact regarding the defendant‘s store owner‘s liability where it was aware that its display of fishing lures projected into the aisle walkway, causing shoppers to knock or kick them onto the ground, thereby creating the danger to other shoppers).
As set forth above, Rodriguez presented evidence that Cemex was aware of a generally dangerous condition on its premises based on the prior incidents that had occurred at the Plant in which the tower had
Cemex argues, however, that these prior incidents only constituted a “handful” of cases, and that “tens of thousands” of independent contractors had safely utilized the platform over the years. In addition, Cemex finds it significant that not all of the prior incidents happened in the same way as Rodriguez‘s accident occurred, i.e., by drivers failing to secure the platform, and that instead, some of the prior accidents occurred when drivers struck the platform. Cemex appears to believe that because of the limited number of prior incidents and the fact that some of them occurred in a different manner, this should preclude a finding that a defect existed at the Plant and/or that there was a condition at the Plant that posed a foreseeable risk of harm to its users. We disagree with both arguments.
We find it insignificant that not all the accidents occurred in the exact same way. As set forth above, the Supreme Court has recognized that in order to establish the element of “foreseeability” in a premises case, it is sufficient if the evidence demonstrates that a “general danger” was foreseeable, and that the premises owner need not anticipate the exact manner in which an injury might occur. See, e.g., Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 556 (citing Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996)). Thus, for premises defect purposes, a condition may be considered defective when there is a “‘sufficient probability of a harmful event occurring that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen it or some similar event as likely to happen (emphasis added).‘” See United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463, 472 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 556; see also Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Assocs., 451 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. 1970); accord Wyatt v. Furr‘s Supermarkets, Inc., 908 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, writ denied)).
In the present case, the prior incidents were all of a similar nature, all involving situations in which the platform became unstable due to driver inattention. The fact that the incidents may have occurred in slightly different ways does not negate the fact that these prior incidents all caused the platform to become unstable, thereby creating a risk that other drivers using the platform at the same time could have been injured. As such, this evidence supported a finding that a foreseeable risk of injury existed to users of the dual use platform as it existed at the time of Rodriguez‘s accident.
In addition, we believe that Rodriguez presented evidence of a sufficient number of prior incidents occurring at the Plant to satisfy this foreseeability factor. While the absence of any prior reports may support a finding that a premises owner did not have knowledge of a dangerous condition on its premises or that an injury was not foreseeable, we know of no cases imposing a requirement that a certain number of reports must have been made in order to support such a finding. See generally Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2007) (holding as matter of law no actual
As set forth above, Rodriguez presented evidence that Cemex was aware that there had been multiple past incidents at the Plant, occurring as often as once a month, in which driver inattention caused the platform to become unstable, at least two of which occurred in the two-month period before Rodriguez‘s accident. Although no one was hurt in those prior incidents, even Cemex‘s own employees testified that it was foreseeable that harm or injury could eventually befall a driver using the tower under these circumstances, and that it failed to take any action to rectify the danger until after Rodriguez‘s accident. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of the prior incidents was sufficient to raise a question of fact for the jury regarding whether Cemex knew or should have known that the design and/or the manner in which it was using the tower constituted a danger to its users, and that it was foreseeable that a user could suffer injury as a result thereof. See generally Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex. 1990) (recognizing that before liability will be imposed, there must be sufficient evidence indicating that the defendant knew or should have known that harm or injury would eventually befall a victim); see also Pitts v. Winkler County, 351 S.W.3d 564, 573 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (whether a condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm in a premises defect case is ordinarily a question of fact).
4. The Significance of Rodriguez‘s Deposition Testimony
Cemex also contends that, despite the evidence of the prior incidents, the trial court properly granted summary judgment because Rodriguez allegedly admitted in his deposition testimony, as did his employer, Tony Franco, that there was no defect at the Plant, whether hidden or otherwise. Cemex then concludes that this deposition testimony precludes a jury finding that a dangerous condition did in fact exist on the premises. We disagree with both Cemex‘s characterization of the deposition testimony, as well as its conclusion.
5. A Jury Question Remained on the Issue of Whether the Dangerous Condition at the Plant was Open and Obvious
And finally, the parties debate over whether the alleged defect on the premises was open and obvious, or whether it was a concealed defect for which Cemex had the duty to either rectify or provide a warning. Cemex contends that the summary judgment evidence established that any defect on the premises was not concealed from Rodriguez, pointing out that Rodriguez himself testified at his deposition that he was aware of how the platform operated, and that he was an experienced driver who had used this and other similar platforms in the past. Cemex also points out that Rodriguez had been to the Plant approximately 20 times prior to his accident in the two weeks leading up to his accident, and was therefore presumably aware of the “dangers associated” with working on the platform. Cemex therefore concludes that this established that the potential danger posed by the platform was or should have been “open and obvious” to Rodriguez, and that it therefore owed no duty to Rodriguez to warn of any such potential danger. We disagree.
As a preliminary matter, we recognize that in some instances, regardless of whether a plaintiff had actual knowledge of a danger, a court may nevertheless find that a danger was open and obvious, as a matter of law. For example, a danger may be said to be open and obvious, as a matter of law, when a plaintiff is injured while working in an inherently dangerous environment, where the danger posed would have been obvious to anyone taking on the task. See, e.g., Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas, 228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. 2007) (danger posed to an employee who was injured while cleaning out a rotating drum on a cement truck was open and obvious); Wilhelm v. Flores, 195 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Tex. 2006) (owner of premises
However, we do not find this to be the case in Rodriguez‘s situation, as we cannot say conclusively that a driver in Rodriguez‘s position would have appreciated the danger posed by the dual use nature of the tower. The mere fact that Rodriguez may have understood how the platform generally operated did not conclusively establish that he understood the potential danger posed by its use, i.e., that the entire tower could become unstable when another driver was using it, thereby creating a danger to him. In particular, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Rodriguez was aware of the prior incidents in which drivers had become entangled with the platform and/or had dragged the platform with them, or of the property damaged caused by such incidents. As Cemex recognizes, Rodriguez‘s first trip to the plant was only two weeks before his accident, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that during those two weeks, he personally witnessed any incidents of this nature, or that he had been told that any such incidents had previously occurred. Moreover, as set forth above, the record indicates that there were no warning signs at the Plant cautioning drivers about the possibility that the tower could become unstable in the event of an accident, or warning them that only one driver at a time should use the tower due to this possibility. As well, Cemex admitted that there were no Cemex employees in the area of the tower at the time of the accident, who could have provided Rodriguez with a warning, or otherwise helped him avoid the dangers posed by the dual use nature of the tower.
We therefore conclude that the summary judgment record did not conclusively establish that Rodriguez had actual knowledge of the dangers posed by the dual nature design and use of the tower, or that a reasonable person in his position would have appreciated the potential danger that it posed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rodriguez, as we must, we cannot conclude that the danger posed by the tower was open and obvious as a matter of law, and instead, we conclude that a question of fact remained on that issue for a jury to resolve. Accordingly, we sustain Issue One and Issue Two.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in Cemex‘s favor on Rodriguez‘s premises liability claim, and we therefore reverse the trial court‘s granting of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings in accordance with our opinion.12
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
July 10, 2019
Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)
Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment