Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 66.4

P REMISES L IABILITY —T HEORIES OF R ECOVERY

owner is determinative—that is, if the plaintiff is an invitee as to the landowner, then he will be an invitee as to the easement holder. If a plaintiff sues an exclusive easement holder, then his status depends on his relationship to the easement holder, not to the landowner. Hernandez v. Heldenfels , 374 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 1963); Roberts v. Friendswood Development Co. , 886 S.W.2d 363, 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ); Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. Razo , 409 S.W.2d 565, 571 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1966), rev’d on other grounds , 420 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. 1967); Denton County Electric Co-operative v. Burkholder , 354 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1962, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Derivative claimant. In cases involving a derivative claimant (see PJC 66.13), the above question must also include the name of the derivative claimant along with that of the primary claimant. Condition must create unreasonable risk resulting in physical harm. Only a condition creating an unreasonable risk that results in physical harm will impose lia bility on the possessor of a premises. Some conditions have been held, as a matter of law, not to create unreasonable risks. See, e.g., United Supermarkets, LLC v. McIntire , 646 S.W.3d 800, 803, 805 (Tex. 2022) (per curiam) (“approximately 3/4-inch divot” in parking lot); Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Fair , 310 S.W.3d 411, 412–13 (Tex. 2010) (accumulation of mud or ice); Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger , 228 S.W.3d 161, 162–63 (Tex. 2007) (ramp at auto dealership); H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez , 988 S.W.2d 218, 219 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam) (customer sampling display); Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates , 451 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. 1970) (throw rug). Substitute particular condition. If it is agreed that the case involves only one condition, the Committee recommends that the particular condition (e.g., a grape on the floor ) be substituted for the phrase the condition . Doctrine of ferae naturae. For discussion of the existence and scope of the duty owed by premises owners with respect to wild animals, see Hillis v. McCall , 602 S.W.3d 436, 441–42 (Tex. 2020) (brown recluse spider); Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Nami , 498 S.W.3d 890, 896–97 (Tex. 2016) (mosquito with West Nile virus). Exceptions to the limitations on joint and several liability. The limitations on joint and several liability set forth in chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code do not apply in certain instances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013. See also chapter 72 in this volume. Settling person, contribution defendant, or responsible third party. See PJC 66.2.

184

Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker