Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 66.6

P REMISES L IABILITY —T HEORIES OF R ECOVERY

PJC 66.6

Premises Liability—Plaintiff’s Status in Dispute

QUESTION ______ On the occasion in question, was Paul Payne an invitee on that part of Don Davis ’s premises under consideration? An “invitee” is a person who is on the premises at the express or implied invitation of the possessor of the premises and who has entered thereon either as a member of the public for a purpose for which the premises are held open to the public or for a purpose connected with the business of the possessor that does or may result in their mutual economic benefit. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. If there is no dispute about the plaintiff’s status, PJC 66.6 is unnec essary. See PJC 66.4 or 66.5. However, if the plaintiff claims only invitee status but the defendant argues that the plaintiff was not an invitee, PJC 66.6 should be submitted followed by PJC 66.4, conditioned on the answer to PJC 66.6. Plaintiff’s status as to easement holder defendant. The plaintiff’s status as to an easement holder defendant depends on whether the easement is exclusive or nonex clusive. An exclusive easement gives the holder the right to exclusive possession; con versely, a nonexclusive easement does not convey the right to exclude others from the easement. If a plaintiff sues a nonexclusive easement holder, his status as to the land 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.). Modify if claimed licensee status in dispute. If the plaintiff claims only that he was a licensee but the defendant argues that the plaintiff was a trespasser, PJC 66.6 may be modified by substituting the phrase a licensee for an invitee in the question and the following definition for that given above:

188