1 NONSUBSCRIBERS CLAIMS OF NO DUTY AGAINST EMPLOYEE S WORKPLACE INJURIES I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. THE FACTS & PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF AUSTIN V. KROGER L.P III. A SHORT HISTORY OF TEXAS MASTER SERVANT LIABILITY... 4 IV. THE DUTIES OF AN EMPLOYER VARY DEPENDING ON THE THEORY OF RECOVERY... 6 A. The Nonsubscriber Trilogy : Kroger Co. v. Elwood, Jack in the Box v. Skiles, and Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss... 6 B. The Distinction Between Negligent-Activity and Premises Liability... 7 V. CONCLUSION... 9 I. INTRODUCTION In Texas, the negligence of a defendant-landowner turns on the status of the plaintiff as he or she entered upon the land. 1 The plaintiff s status as a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee thus establishes the landowner s duty. 2 Invitees enter the land with the express consent of the landowner and for the mutual benefit of the landowner and themselves. 3 Under this definition, employees are considered invitees when they enter upon their employer s premises. 4 A landowner s duty to an invitee is that of reasonable care, which may include a duty to warn and a duty to make the premises reasonably safe. 5 However, a landowner generally has no duty to warn invitees of dangers that are open and obvious. 6 This Note focuses 1. See Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 767 (Tex. 2010). 2. Mellon Mortg. Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654, 655 (Tex. 1999) ( For most premises liability cases, the foreseeability analysis will be shaped by determining whether the plaintiff was an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. ); see also Del Lago, 307 S.W.3d at See Rosas v. Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex. 1975). 4. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 332 cmts. a, j (1965). 5. See City of Beaumont v. Graham, 441 S.W.2d 829, 834 (Tex. 1969) ( Stated generally, these duties require elimination, or warning to the invitee, of hidden conditions which are unreasonably dangerous and which are known to the owner or occupier but are unknown to the invitee. ). 6. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Robinson, 280 S.W.2d 238, 240 (Tex. 1955); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 343A(1) (1965) ( A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. (emphasis added)). 1
2 2 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Spring 2015 exclusively on the duty owed by employer-landowner to his or her employee-invitees under Texas premises liability law. The Texas Workmen s Compensation Act (TWCA) abrogates nonsubscribing 7 employers common-law defenses in premises liability actions brought by their employees. 8 As such, complications arise when an employee, suing as an invitee, is injured by an open and obvious condition on the premises. Texas courts have struggled to answer a difficult question: does the open and obvious nature of a condition completely eliminate the duty an employer owes to an employee-invitee, or should the employeeinvitee s subjective appreciation of the risk constitute a defense to liability? Under the first view, nonsubscribing employers can evade liability arguing that the employee-invitee failed as a matter of law to state a valid claim of negligence (i.e. because the employee failed to show the employer owed a duty). 9 Under the second view, nonsubscribers are barred from claiming that the employee assumed the risk a common-law defense unavailable to nonsubscribers after the enactment of the TWCA. 10 Recently, in the case of Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P., the Fifth Circuit asked the Supreme Court of Texas to address this issue by certified question. 11 Part II of this Note will discuss the facts and procedural posture of Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P. Part III will present a short history of Texas master servant liability. Part IV will highlight an important distinction concerning an employer s duty in premises liability actions versus negligent-activity actions. Part V will conclude by examining the Supreme Court s likely disposition of Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P. II. THE FACTS & PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF AUSTIN V. KROGER L.P. Austin began working for Kroger in In 2008, Austin started working as utility clerk or floor-cleanup person at a Kroger location in Mesquite, Texas. 13 On July 27, 2009, Kroger performed a cleaning of the store s condenser units located on the mezzanine level of the facility. 14 As a 7. Texas Worker s Compensation scheme is elective in nature. As such, the terms nonsubscribing and nonsubscriber are used in Texas, and throughout this Note, to describe employers and businesses that do not subscribe to Texas Worker s Compensation Scheme. 8. See generally TEX. LAB. CODE ANN (a) (West Supp. 2014) (precluding nonsubscribers from claiming that an injured employee was contributory negligent or assumed the risk); see also Robinson, 280 S.W.2d at 239 ( It was with the law in Texas in this attitude that the Legislature passed the Workmen's Compensation Act and abolished the defense of assumption of risk. (emphasis added)). 9. See Robinson, 280 S.W.2d at See id. 11. See Austin v. Kroger Tex. L.P., 746 F.3d 191, 204 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). 12. Id. at Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 14. Id.
3 2015] NONSUBSCRIBERS CLAIMS OF NO DUTY 3 result of the cleaning, a dirty brown liquid leaked through the ventilation ducts on to the floor of the restrooms below. 15 Austin was tasked with cleaning up whatever mess was made by the condenser cleaning. 16 Upon inspection, Austin discovered the oily, dirty brown liquid on the floor in both restrooms. 17 Unable to locate floor cleaner on the premises that day, Austin was given a dry mop to remedy the spill. 18 Austin placed wet floor signs inside and outside of the restroom, took baby steps, and changed the mop numerous times during the cleaning. 19 Nevertheless, after some time cleaning the spill, Austin slipped, fell, and sustained injuries. 20 Austin asserted three theories of recovery: ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. 21 Kroger a nonsubscriber under the TWCA moved for summary judgment arguing that Austin was barred from recovery because he subjectively appreciated the risk. 22 The federal district court granted Kroger s summary judgment. 23 Austin timely appealed. 24 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found Austin was precluded from asserting both negligent-activity and premises liability claims based on the same injury. 25 Because Austin s injuries arose from a defect on the premises and not an activity or omission, only his premises liability claim was considered. 26 Moreover, because Austin s premises liability claim implicated arguably unsettled [Texas] law regarding a nonsubscribing employer s duty to employee-invitees, the Fifth Circuit certified the following questions to the Supreme Court: 27 Pursuant to Texas law, including (a)(1)-(3) of the Texas Labor Code, can an employee recover against a [non]subscribing employer for an injury caused by a premises defect of which he was fully aware but that his job duties required him to remedy? Put differently, does the employee s awareness of 15. Id. 16. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 17. Id. 18. Id. According to Kroger s Safety Handbook, store management was to make certain that Spill Magic Spill Response Stations [were] adequately supplied at all times. Id. (alteration in original). According to Kroger s Safety Handbook, Spill Magic allows a liquid spill to be cleaned with a broom and a dustpan and effectively reduces slip-and-falls by 25%. Id. 19. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 20. Id. 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Id. 24. Id. 25. Id. at Id. at Id. at 194.
4 4 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Spring 2015 the defect eliminate the employer s duty to maintain a safe workplace? 28 III. A SHORT HISTORY OF TEXAS MASTER SERVANT LIABILITY In 1894, the Texas Supreme Court examined an employer s duty to warn employees of the dangers associated with stacking railroad ties. 29 Recognizing that the employee s work involved no exercise of peculiar skill and no [use of] dangerous machinery, the court found the employer had no duty to warn employees of such dangers. 30 A close reading of Echols reveals the employer s claim of no duty did not operate as a defense, but rather, as an outright bar to recovery by negating the employee s ability to establish a standard of care that could be breached. 31 Thus, under Echols, employers could briskly evade liability by asserting that they have no duty to warn employees of common dangers associated with their work. The Texas Legislature recognized this inherent unfairness and enacted the Employers Liability Act of 1913, an early predecessor to the TWCA. 32 The Texas Supreme Court has since articulated the dual-pronged legislative intent behind the TWCA: (1) to eliminate nonsubscribers assumption of the risk defense against employees injured by open and obvious conditions in the workplace; and (2) to allow recovery from nonsubscribing employers who created or failed to correct an unsafe condition of the premises. 33 Thus, although employers are not required to subscribe, a failure to do imposes significant limitations on their ability to defend against employees premises liability claims. In 1934, the Texas Supreme Court recognized four specific duties owed by an employer to his or her employees. 34 Texas employers owe absolute or nondelegable duties to their employees, including: (1) the duty to provide rules and regulations and the duty to warn of certain hazardous conditions of employment; (2) the duty to furnish reasonably safe machinery or instrumentalities for the employee s work; (3) the duty to make the workplace reasonably safe; and (4) the duty to exercise 28. Id. at See Tex. & N.O. Ry. v. Echols, 27 S.W. 60, 61 (Tex. 1894). 30. See id. at See id. ( There was no evidence in this case of negligence on the part of the railroad company.... ). 32. Tex. Workers Compensation Comm n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 510 (Tex. 1995). 33. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Robinson, 280 S.W.2d 238, 240 (Tex. 1955) (emphasis added). In 2000, the Texas Supreme Court revisited the legislative intent behind the Act describing section of the Act as penaliz[ing] nonsubscribers by precluding them from asserting certain common-law defenses in their employees personal-injury actions. Kroger Co. v. Keng, 23 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Tex. 2000). 34. Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell, 70 S.W.2d 397, 401 (1934), overruled on other grounds, Wright v. Gifford-Hill & Co., 725 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1987).
5 2015] NONSUBSCRIBERS CLAIMS OF NO DUTY 5 ordinary care in selecting competent co-employees. 35 Thus, employers owe four ongoing and indispensable duties to their employees under Texas law. In 1955, the Texas Supreme Court eliminated nonsubscribing employers claims of no duty to dodge liability in premises liability actions brought by their employees. 36 As a threshold matter, the court determined that the employer s claims of no duty because of the open and obvious nature of a premises condition operated as a defense (i.e., assumption of the risk) and not a limitation on the employer s duty. 37 Finding that the assumption of the risk defense was made unavailable to nonsubscribers following the TWCA s enactment, the court affirmed a judgment by the lower court against the employer. 38 Thirty-three years after Robinson, the court extended its recognition of claims of no duty as an assumption of the risk defense in all premises liability cases brought by invitees, even outside the employment context. 39 In the court s view, an invitee s conduct with regard to an open and obvious condition is a matter which bears upon his own contributory negligence and should be properly raised as a defense. 40 Accordingly, Parker merely reaffirms Robinson, resolving the confusion in Texas jurisprudence as to how a claim of no duty by defendant-landowners should be raised and properly analyzed. However, because Parker did not involve an employer employee relationship, the TWCA s restrictions on nonsubscribers were not considered. In 2010, the court analyzed the application of the no duty concept in a premises liability action brought by an invitee against the owners of a bar. 41 The plaintiff there was injured when he intervened in a fight between patrons at the bar. 42 Because his claim was brought against a nonemployer, the TWCA had no application and was not discussed by the court Id. at See Robinson, 280 S.W.2d at See id. at 240. This holding appears to be at odds with the court s holding sixty years earlier in Echols which held that there was no evidence... of negligence on the part of the railroad company because the employee subjectively appreciated the risks of the work. Tex. & N.O. Ry. v. Echols, 27 S.W. 60, 62 (Tex. 1894). However, for reasons described in Part IV, infra, this apparent contradiction is reconcilable. 38. See Robinson, 280 S.W.2d at See Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 512, 513, (Tex. 1978). 40. Id. at See Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 764, 767 (Tex. 2010). 42. Id. at 766. The plaintiff alleged that the resort owners were liable for his injuries because they were aware of a dangerous condition on the premises and did nothing to prevent it from causing his injury. Id. at 769. The dangerous condition was the volatile and escalating tension between patrons, which was exacerbated by the bar s continuing to serve alcoholic beverages and its failure to call security. Id. 43. Unlike Robinson, the case did not analyze claims brought by an employee against a nonsubscribing employer. Nevertheless, his status was that of an invitee for the purposes of establishing the bar owner s duty. Id. at 767.
6 6 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Spring 2015 Moreover, the employer duties outlined in Russell found no application in this case brought by a customer against the resort owners. Relying on its holding in Parker, the court affirmed a finding that the resort breached its duty to the plaintiff, despite a finding of contributory negligence by the jury at trial. 44 IV. THE DUTIES OF AN EMPLOYER VARY DEPENDING ON THE THEORY OF RECOVERY A. The Nonsubscriber Trilogy : Kroger Co. v. Elwood, Jack in the Box v. Skiles, and Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss In the instant matter, the Fifth Circuit perceive[d] some tension regarding three cases that predate the Del Lago opinion but which Kroger argues breathe new life into the no duty concept abandoned by the Court in Parker. 45 Unlike the employee employer cases described above, 46 the employees in these three cases sued their respective nonsubscribing employers alleging negligent activity and not premises liability theories. 47 While claims of premises liability rely on the existence of an injury-causing condition on the premises, negligent activity claims result from an affirmative act or omission by the employer. 48 In each of these cases, the court found that an employer owes no duty to warn its employees about the dangers of activities undertaken by employees during work when such activities presented a danger known to all. 49 As such, the court has held that an employer has no duty to warn an employee of the following dangerous activities: an employer s failure to train or advise its employees about the risks of placing one s hand in a customer s car door jamb when unloading groceries; 50 an employer s failure to warn an employee about the dangers of using a ladder to mount the broken lift gate of a truck; 51 and 44. Id. at Austin v. Kroger Tex. L.P., 746 F.3d 191, 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2014). 46. See discussion supra Part III. 47. See Austin, 746 F.3d at See id. at 202 n.8 ( Although negligent activity and premises defect are branches of the same tree, they are conceptually distinct claims: negligent activity encompasses a malfeasance theory based on affirmative, contemporaneous conduct by the owner that caused the injury, while premises liability encompasses a nonfeasance theory based on the owner s failure to take measures to make the property safe. (quoting Del Lago, 307 S.W.3d at 776)). 49. Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 795 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); see infra notes Kroger Co., 197 S.W.3d at 793, 795 ( Kroger had no duty to warn Elwood of a danger known to all....).
7 2015] NONSUBSCRIBERS CLAIMS OF NO DUTY 7 an employer s failure to warn an employee of the dangers associated with entering and navigating through a confined space where a lowboy cart is present. 52 B. The Distinction Between Negligent-Activity and Premises Liability The distinction between negligent activity and premises liability theories will ultimately be determinative in the case of Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P. That distinction lies on the face of the complaint and factually depends on whether the employee is suing as an employee versus when the employee is suing as an invitee. 53 Furthermore, an employer s duty to his or her employees varies significantly depending on whether negligent activity or premises liability is alleged. 54 When the employee alleges negligent activity, the employer s duty is measured by the four duties recognized by the court in Russell: (1) the duty to provide rules and regulations and to warn of certain hazardous conditions of employment; (2) the duty to furnish reasonably safe machinery or instrumentalities for the employee s work; (3) the duty to make the workplace reasonably safe; and (4) the duty to exercise ordinary care in selecting competent co-workers. 55 However, when the employee sues an as invitee, the employer owes an additional, heightened duty of care. Under a premises liability theory, an employer s duties to his employees include the four duties outlined in Russell in addition to the duty of reasonable care, the duty to warn, and the duty to make safe duties owed to all invitees regardless of employment status. 56 Therefore, nonsubscribers are vulnerable to premises liability claims by employees because (1) they owe a heightened duty of care based on the condition of the premises, and (2) because they are unable to assert an assumption of the risk under the precedent of Robinson. 51. Jack in the Box, Inc. v. Skiles, 221 S.W.3d 566, 566, 569 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) ( The dangers associated with the use of a ladder to climb over a lift gate are common and obvious to anyone. ). 52. Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss, 262 S.W.3d 793, 795 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) ([W]e conclude that Brookshire owed no duty to warn Goss of a risk commonly known and appreciated....). 53. See Odom v. Kroger Tex., L.P., Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-0579-D, 2014 WL , at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2014) ( When an employee sues qua invitee, because he was injured by a condition that was not directly caused by the negligent activity of his employer and his employer did nothing else to cause the injury, he must satisfy the elements of premises liability. But when an employee sues qua employee, because his employer has violated one of its continuous, nondelegable duties to the employee, he must satisfy the elements of ordinary negligence. ). 54. See id. 55. Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell, 70 S.W.2d 397, (1934), overruled on other grounds, Wright v. Gifford-Hill & Co., 725 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1987); see also Odom, 2014 WL , at * See Odom, 2014 WL , at *5.
8 8 SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW [Spring 2015 Like the Nonsubscriber Trilogy, Echols analyzed an employer s duty under a claim of negligent activity. Indeed, Echols resolved whether an employer had a duty to warn his employees of dangers associated with stacking railroad ties, a claim wholly unrelated to the condition of the premises. 57 In negligent activity actions then, an employer may validly claim that it had no duty whatsoever to warn its employees of activities whose danger is known to all. 58 This makes good sense because in the absence of a premises liability claim the employer s duties do not include a duty of reasonable care, a duty to warn, or to make the premises safe for the invitee. Quite simply, the condition of the premises is not a concern when mere negligent-activity is alleged. Thus, in light of the in the Nonsubscriber Trilogy, Echols is still good law when the employee sues on a negligent-activity theory. Robinson is the controlling precedent in this premises liability case. In Robinson, the invitee was an experienced employee. 59 On the day of the accident, he noticed a pool of oily liquid on the floor of the warehouse. 60 He admitted to knowing that oil was slippery yet proceeded to work. 61 As he helped others move a car engine, he slipped, fell, and sustained injuries. 62 He then sued as an invitee. 63 Although the condition was open and obvious to him, his employer was a nonsubscriber and was thus unable to assert assumption of the risk as a defense. 64 The court roundly rejected the employer s argument that it had no duty whatsoever to warn its employee of the danger. 65 Robinson was decided in 1955, remains good law in Texas, and is analogous to Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P. Despite Kroger s urging, the court is unlikely to extend its recognition of the no duty concept from the premises liability field to the master servant field. 66 Such a holding would thwart the legislative intent behind the TWCA. 67 If the court allows an extension in this case, employers would simply self-insure under a less expensive policy, claim no duty against all employee premises claims, and have all such cases disposed of on summary 57. See Tex. & N.O. Ry. v. Echols, 27 S.W. 60, 61 (Tex. 1894). 58. See Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 795 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). 59. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Robinson, 280 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Tex. 1955). 60. See id. 61. See id. 62. See id. 63. See id. passim. 64. Id. at See id. at See id. ( The two fields of law (landowner-invitee and master-servant), are entirely separate, and they should be kept so. ). 67. See id. ( Certainly the concept should not be so extended when its extension would serve to defeat and nullify the obvious and clearly expressed intention of the Legislature.... ).
9 2015] NONSUBSCRIBERS CLAIMS OF NO DUTY 9 judgment. Such as result is antithetical to the intent of the TWCA and places the costs of employers negligence entirely on employees. V. CONCLUSION In the case of Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P., Austin sued his employer as an invitee under a premises liability theory. 68 Austin s injures resulted from an open and obvious dangerous condition of the slippery floor, which Austin subjectively appreciated. 69 As such, Kroger a nonsubscriber under the TWCA is barred from claiming that it owed Austin no duty with regard to the open and obvious condition. In Texas premises liability law, no duty claims are properly analyzed as an assumption of the risk defense. Because the TWCA eliminates nonsubscribers ability to assert assumption of the risk as a defense, Kroger s contention that it owed Austin no duty is of no avail. Whether Kroger violated one or more of the duties it owed to Austin is not analyzed by this Note. Accordingly, the Texas Supreme Court should answer the Fifth Circuit s certified questions as follows: 1. Pursuant to Texas law, including (a)(1)-(3) of the Texas Labor Code, can an employee recover against a non-subscribing employer for an injury caused by a premises defect of which he was fully aware but that his job duties required him to remedy? Yes. 2. Put differently, does the employee s awareness of the defect eliminate the employer s duty to maintain a safe workplace? No. Stephen L. Pasta 68. See supra Part II. 69. See supra Part II.
Case: 12-10772 Document: 00512569661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 21, 2014 RANDY J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0776 444444444444 CHAPMAN CUSTOM HOMES, INC., AND MICHAEL B. DUNCAN, TRUSTEE OF THE M. B. DUNCAN SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST, PETITIONERS, v. DALLAS PLUMBING
Case :09-cv-00910-FB Document Filed 10/0/10 Page 1 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CARL DWIGHT DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-09-CA-910-FB
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion Filed July 28, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00894-CV TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellant V. JOSEPH MCRAE,
Title: Current Construction Injury Law in California Issue: Oct Year: 2003 Current Construction Injury Law in California Morgan C. Smith Since the last issue of the Forum dedicated to construction litigation,
CO-EMPLOYEE LIABILITY 2013 DEVELOPMENTS Established in 1945, Evans & Dixon, L.L.C. is one of the most experienced and respected insurance defense firms in the Midwest. Steeped in tradition and committed
Legal Liability in Recreation Site Management RRT 484 Professor Ed Krumpe 1 Legal Climate Sovereign immunity is basically dead. Lawsuits are part of normal operations & we cannot prevent them. Injuries
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
SAFETY REVIEW NOT SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2008 James C. Kozlowski In contracting for personal services, an architect's duty depends on the particular agreement entered into
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES.
Workplace Related Injuries A Discussion of the Relevant Provisions of New York State Labor Law By: WARREN S. KOSTER, ESQ. CALLAN, REGENSTREICH, KOSTER & BRADY ONE WHITEHALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS: LANDOWNER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER LIABILITY REVISITED In the recent case of Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 911 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2006) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 firstname.lastname@example.org Case Study: City Of Stockton V. BNSF Railway Law360,
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0425 444444444444 PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, v. BILL HEAD D/B/A BILL HEAD ENTERPRISES AND TITEFLEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
CHAPTER 30: EMPLOYEE INJURIES INTRODUCTION TO JOB SAFETY Our legal system has developed three ways of handling employee injuries: A. NEGLIGENCE SUITS Was developed under common-law where the injured employee
Case: 12-11755 Date Filed: 01/22/2015 Page: 1 of 6 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-11755 D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-00733-JSM-TGW LETICIA MORALES, Individually
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03-0408 444444444444 BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, D/B/A BROOKSHIRE FOOD STORES, PETITIONER V. MARY FRANCIS TAYLOR, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 email@example.com Schiff Hardin LLP.
Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts What is Negligence? Someone who commits a careless act that creates harm to another person is negligent. Over the past several years, negligence has become the
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
2:11-cv-11155-AC-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/03/12 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION URSULA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 11-11155 DELTA AIR LINES,
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TRENT THOMPSON Salem, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: REBECCA J. MAAS KYLE B. DEHAVEN Smith Fisher Maas & Howard, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
If you have questions regarding Product Liability, please contact Bruce Schoumacher via firstname.lastname@example.org www.querrey.com 2012 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. B. PRODUCT LIABILITY ILLINOIS
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 18, Number 4 (18.4.56) Product Liability By: James W. Ozog and Staci A. Williamson Wiedner
Case: 09-30299 Document: 0051998279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D January 7, 2010 Summary
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Tim Cameron, Kim Chamberlain, Chris Killian Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association David R. Carpenter, Collin P. Wedel, Lauren A. McCray Liability of Municipal Members
Case: 13-60119 Document: 00512554303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GARY CHENEVERT, v. Plaintiff Appellee United States Court of Appeals Fifth
Premises Liability of Contractors & Subcontractors R. Brent Cooper Diana L. Faust Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Tel: (214) 712-9500 Fax: (214) 712-9450 Brent.Cooper@CooperScully.com
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JOHN MACARTNEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 15-0172 444444444444 FIRST TEXAS BANK, PETITIONER, v. CHRIS CARPENTER, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
LEGAL ISSUES Why should I learn about legal issues? School administrators are typically the only personnel to receive training in classroom liability issues, yet teachers have the most responsibility for
PBI Electronic Publication # EP-2820 Analysis of Premises Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third Parties Kenneth M. Dubrow, Esq. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP Philadelphia A chapter from Tort Law Update
CONSTRUCTION LAW No Scaffold Required By Christopher Renzulli and John V. Tait Further Expansion of New York Scaffold Law Expansion of the exceptional protection of workers in the industry continues to
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JOYCE FULLINGTON PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:10CV00236 JLH PLIVA, INC., formerly known as Pliva USA, Inc.; and MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
LIABILITY FOR SLIP AND FALL CLAIMS IN THE POST ROBINSON V. KROGER COMPANY ERA (BEST DEFENSE PRACTICES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND INSURERS) By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway
Torts Copyright July, 2006 State Bar of California After paying for his gasoline at Delta Gas, Paul decided to buy two 75-cent candy bars. The Delta Gas store clerk, Clerk, was talking on the telephone,
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 LESTER BLACKMAN, ET AL. VERSUS BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY ************ APPEAL FROM THE CITY COURT OF ALEXANDRIA, PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 103,325,
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman
TRINITY V. COWAN: MENTAL ANGUISH IS NOT BODILY INJURY AND AN INTENTIONAL TORT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT By David Plaut Hanna & Plaut, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01546-CV OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person.
Case: 11-10294 Date Filed: 03/01/2012 Page: 1 of 6 EMMANUEL EBEH, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-10294 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02628-JDW-TBM
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-2125 Hussen W. Butta, Appellant, vs. Mortgage
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: MICHAEL A. MINGLIN Miller & Minglin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JAMES W. ROEHRDANZ ERIC D. JOHNSON Kightlinger & Gray, LLP Indianapolis,
Opinion issued September 26, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-01123-CV ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, Appellant V. MARCO MURILLO, Appellee On Appeal from the
2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
Affirmed and Opinion filed February 7, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01144-CV ANTONIO GARCIA, JR., Appellant V. PALESTINE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, n/k/a MEMORIAL MOTHER FRANCES HOSPITAL,
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Chapter IV FACULTY LIABILITY I. Overview INTRODUCTION Faculty members are agents of their employers the college or university. In that capacity, the college is liable or responsible for their acts that
9-18-01 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2001-CC-0175 CLECO CORPORATION Versus LEONARD JOHNSON AND LEGION INDEMNITY COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
Key Concept 4: Understanding Product Liability Law Suppose that you are the president of a firm making products for sale to the public. One of your worries would be the company's exposure to civil liability
Case: 13-20764 Document: 00512823894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Plaintiff - Appellee v. United States Court
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00815-CV IN THE ESTATE OF Alvilda Mae AGUILAR From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-PC-2802 Honorable
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited v Sutton (6 June 2008) Introduction: Claims for accidents on building sites usually involve multiple parties. There are often contracts between the parties
LIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT By: Richard Evans Staff Attorney Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool The King Can Do No Wrong Sovereign Immunity Under common law, state and political
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS,
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110 Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant. Filed January 21, 2014 Affirmed Hooten, Judge Cass County District
Understanding the Differences Between Premises Liability and Negligence Kirsten A. Davenport Joanna M. Tollenaere Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712
The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action
[Cite as Roddy v. Columbus State Community College, 2005-Ohio-1809.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MICHELLE D. RODDY : Plaintiff : CASE NO. 2004-03608 Judge Joseph T. Clark v. : DECISION COLUMBUS STATE
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
Case 3:09-cv-00748-B Document 23 Filed 09/23/09 Page 1 of 8 PageID 649 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ESTATE OF JOHNNY FISHER, Dec d, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
2015 IL App (1st) 142157-U FOURTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-14-2157 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION WHISKEY TANGO, INC., MAY TERM, 2006 Plaintiff, NO. 3026 v. COMMERCE PROGRAM UNITED STATES
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows: BY KIMBALL, J.: 2002-C - 1634 RONALD J.
LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF S SLIP AND FALL CLAIM WHERETTHERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THERE WAS ANYTHING ON THE FLOOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL Filed
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle