### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 617 -CV

Ca r e y Ea r l Ja m e s , A ppe lla nt

v. Cousin s P ropert ies Texas, L.P . , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-04- 0022 75 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVI NGSTON , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a no-evidenc e sum mary judgme nt g rante d in favor of Cousins Pr op e rt ie s T e xas, L .P. on Care y Ea rl Jame s’ s c la im fo r inj ur ie s su ff e re d wh e n the po rt a

ble toi le t in wh ic h he wa s sitti ng ro lle d off a loa din g do c k. Cou sin s mo ve d f or summa ry jud g me nt o n th e ba sis that there was no e vidence that it ex er ci s ed or re tained contr ol over the w ork beingdone that

re qu ir e d a

po rt a ble to il e t, o r t

hat it ha d a c tua l kn ow le dg e of the da ng e ro us c on dit ion

re su lti ngin J ames’s injuries. Spec ifically , Cousins arg ued that ther e wa s no evidenc e that Cousins had control

ov e r t he po rt a ble toi le t or its pla c e me nt o r t hat Co us ins kn e w o f a

ny da ng e ro us c on dit ion

re late d to the portable toilet. J ames c ontends that some evidenc e ra ised a g enuine issue of materia l fact on the se iss ue s. We a ff

ir m th e summa

ry jud g me nt.Jame s su e d a nd se ttl e d w itha

numbe r o f o the r p art ie s. 1 2 Backg ro und Cousins owned the Fr ost Bank Tower wher e the incide nt at issue occur red. A tenant in the building hir ed SpawMax well Company , L P, to build out it s space . SpawMaxwell hired Delta Gr anite & Marble to do a portion of t he work. Delta employ ed James as a truc k driver. O n J anuar y 17, 2004, J ames de livered a truckload of

stone to the Fr ost Bank T ower . Whil e at the building , J ames e ntere d a porta ble t oilet with wheels that wa s located on a sidewa lk next to the loading dock wh i ch was a pproxi mately

four f eet f rom the g round. The toi le t ha d b e e n pla c e d on the sid e wa lk b y a Spa wM a xwe ll e mpl oy e e to g ive Ca pit a l Ch e mc an a c c e ss to cl e an it. Whil e Jame s wa s in the po rt a ble toi le t, it rol le d off the sid e wa lk/ loa din g do c k a nd fe ll fo ur fe e t to the g ro un d, inj ur ingJame s.

Jame s su e d Co us ins , contendingit was neg lige nt in failing to pr o v i d e h i m a saf e 1 workplac e and f

ailing to wa

rn him of the dang ers a ssociated with the por table toilet. J ames a lleg ed that Cousins was “in exclusive control of the common are as of the premises,” and that it was “ awa re that the porta potties were being left on the l oading docks over the weekends and that this created a dang erous situation.”

Cousins’s former dire ctor of pr operty manag ement, Allen F roman, testified by deposition that he had be en in cha rg e of se curity

for the building . He hire d a compa ny to monitor

secur ity

. Fr oman t estified that he directed that the portable toilets rea dy for c leaningbe plac ed off the loadingdock and a g ainst a bac k wall because of their odor. He said that neither he nor his staff ha d a ny fi rs t- ha nd kn ow le dg e re g ard ingthe inc ide nt i nv olv ingJame s.Cousins also filed a tra ditional moti on, but the trial court did not spec ifically rule on that 2 motion. I t was implicitly denied by

operation of the M o t h er Hubbar d clause included in the judgme nt denying a ll relief not g rante d. 3

SpawM ax we l l ’s s uperintende nt David Pere z testi fied that he discussed putting the portable toilets that neede d clea ning on the loading dock at a meetingFr oman attende d. He testified that Cousins would know of the place ment beca use its security

contra ctor would have see n them put there . Perez testified t hat he instructed his employ ees to lock the whe els of the por table toilets. He ag ree d that failure to lock the whee ls in that location would create a da ng erous situation. Cousins filed a no -evidence motion for summary judgme nt, arguing that it was 2 entitled to summary

judgme nt beca

use “the re is no-e vidence that Cousins exercised or reta ined

c on tr ol ov e r the mann e r in wh ic h the mob ile po rt a ble toi le t wa s le ft in the loa din g do c k and that it had ac tual knowledg e of the alleg ed dang erous c ondition resulting in the Plaintiff’s injuries.”

The district cour

t gr anted Cousins’s no-evi d e n c e mo tion f or summary

judgme nt. The

co u rt d i d n o ts p ec i fy

a p ar t i cu l ar

b as i s fo r t h e r

u l i n g.

Discussion J ames c ontends that the trial court e rre d in gr anting Cousins’s mot ion for summary judgme nt. He ar g ues that there was e vidence cre ating materia l fac t issues reg ardingCousins’s control and a ctual knowledg e. We reviewa summary judgme nt de novo. Joe v . Two T hirty Nine J oin t V e ntu re , 145 S.W .3d 150, 156 (Tex. 2004). Be cause the trial cour t did not specify

a par ticular g ro un d on wh ic h it g ra

nte d th e mot ion , Jam e s mu st s ho w that ne ith e r o f t he tw o g ro un ds a lle g e d in Cousins’s no-evidence motion ca n support the trial cour

t’s judgme nt. See F

M Props. Operating Co.Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code a pplies to the following ty

pes 3 of c la ims : (1) a g ainst a property owner , contra ctor, or subcontrac tor for personal injury , death, or prope rty

damag e to an owne r, a c ontrac tor, or a subcontrac tor or an e mploy ee of a contr actor

or subcontra ctor; and

4 v . Ci ty of A us tin , 22 S.W .3d 868, 872 (Tex. 2000)

. I f we find that summary judgme nt is proper on either g round, we must affirm. Brad le yv . S tate ex rel. W

hite , 990 S.W .2d 245, 247 (Tex. 1999); Star-Telegram, Inc . v. Doe , 915 S.W .2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995).

We r e vie w the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

avorable to the no nmo va nt, disreg ardingall contra

ry evidenc e and inf

ere nces. King Ranch, Inc. v . Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). We indulge all rea sonable infe renc es and r esolve an y d o u b t in the nonmovant’s favor. Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. G rant , 73 S.W .3d 21 1 , 2 1 5 (Tex. 2002). A g rant of a

no-evide nce motion is inappropriate if the nonmovant prese nts more than a scintilla of probative evidenc e raising a g enuine issue of materia l f act. King Ranch , 118 S.W .3d at 751. More tha n a sc int ill a of e vid e nc e e xists wh e n th e e vid e nc e “ ri se s to a le ve l th a t w ou ld e na

ble re a so na

ble and fa ir-minded people to differ in their conc lusions.” Merre ll Dow Pharms., Inc. v. H avner , 95 3 S. W.2 d 7 06 , 7 11 (T e x. 19 97 ). L e ss t ha n a sc int ill a of e vid e nc e e xists wh e n the e vid e nc e is s o

weak as to creat e n o m o re than a mer e suspicion or surmise. Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983).

Te xas law sh ie lds pr op e rt y ow ne rs fr om lia

bil ity fo r many inj ur ie s that befa ll independe nt contrac tors due to circ umstances that are not in the owner ’s control. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Re m. Code Ann. §§ 95.002, .003 (West 2005). A prope rty owner wi l l b e h el d liable under 3(2) that a rises fr om the condition or use of an improvement to rea l property wher e the contra ctor or subc ontract o r const ructs, re pairs, re novates, or modifie s the imp ro ve me nt. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 95.002 (West 2005). Chapter 95 descr ibes a prope rty

owner ’s lia bil ity fo r t he a c ts o f a

n in de pe nd e nt c on tr a c tor

a s f oll ow s: A prope rty

owner is not li able f

o r personal injury , death, or proper ty damag e to a contra ctor, subcontr actor , or an e mploy ee of a contr acto r or subc ontrac tor who constru ct s , re p ai rs , re n o v at es , o r m o d i fi es an i mp ro v em en tt o re al p ro p er t y , i n cl u ding persona l injury , death, or

proper ty damag e ar ising fr om the failure to provide a sa fe wo rk pla c e un le ss: (1) the pr operty

owner exercises or r etains some contr ol over the manner in which the work is pe rfor med, other tha

n the rig ht to order the work to star

t or stop or to inspect prog ress or r ece ive re ports; and (2) the property

owner had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er or co n d i t i o nre s u l t i n g i nt h e p er s o n al i n j u ry , d ea t h , o r pr o p er t y

d am age and fa iled to adequately

war n. Id . § 95.003. 5 sectio n 95.003 only

if the plaintiff shows that the owner r etained or exercised c ontrol over the

manner in which the wor

k was pe rfor

med and ha d actua l knowledge of the da ng er or condition which re sulted in the plaintiff’s injury

. Id. § 9 5. 00 3. Th e pla int if f m us t pr ov e bo th o f t

he se e le me nts befor e liability

will be imp o s ed o n t he owne r. Rueda v . Paschal , 178 S.W .3d 107, 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2005, no pet.). The statutory “ac tual knowledg e” sta

ndard r eplac es the pre- chapte r 95 standard of constructive knowledg e. Phillips v. Dow Chem. Co. , 186 S.W .3d 121, 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2005, no pet).

Be fore deter

mining if ther e is evidenc e that Cousins had ac t u al k n owledg e of the dang er or condition, we must determine what the re levant dang er or condition was. James contendsThis opinion shoul d not b e co n s t rued a s a dete rmination reg ardingthe inhere nt 4 dang erousne ss of portable toilets with unlocked wheels. This scope of this opini on is constrained by the e vid e nc e in thi s re c or d, wh ic h is lim ite d to wh e the r t his pa rt ic ula r p la c e me nt o f t

his toi le t w ith its wheels unlocked c reated a da ng erous c ondition.

6 that leavingthe portable toilet on the sidewalk of the loadingdock constituted the da ng er. Cousins

argue s th a t w he the r t

he wh e e ls w e re loc ke d d e te rm ine s w he the r t he toi le t w a s d ang e ro us . Whil e ther e is evidenc e that placing a portable toilet on the s idewalk near the loading dock with its wheels fr ee to r oll is dange rous, there is no evidenc e that placing a porta ble toilet where it was place d with its whe els locked would have c reated a da ng erous c ondition. J ames c ontends that 4 Fr oman ac knowledg ed in his deposition that placing the portable toilet on the sidewalk nea r the loading dock wa s dang erous. However , that is not precisely Fr oman’s testimony . Fr oman testified to differ ent conc erns de pendingon whether the portable toilet wa s stationary or mobile. He testified that stationary

toilets on the sidewalk cre ated an obstacle to tr avel. When aske d if he ha d any other

conce rns, he testified, “ I f they wer e trying to le ave the stationary units ther e, no. I f they wer e trying to l e ave the mob ile un its the re , y e s. Th e spac e isn ’t bige no ug h. ” He a dd e d th a t th e mob ile un its

cre ated a n odor issue. Althoug h Fr oman tes t i fi ed t h at he would have been c oncer ned about the potential for the por

table toilets to roll and fall, that wa s in r esponse to a que stion that included the ad d i t i o n al co ndition that the portable toilet was to be plac ed on the sidew alk with its whe e ls unlocke d . Fr oman’s st ated concer n about a risk was that the t oilet could roll or fa ll in that posi tion if it had whee ls and those whee ls w ere not loc ked. This statement does not show that the da ng er w as

cre ated mer ely

by placinga mobile, portable toilet near the loading dock.7 T h i s case is simi lar to Rueda , in which the subcontra ctor’s injure d employ ee contende d that b e cause the landowne rs knew that worker s were using a ladder to acc ess the base ment of the house, the landowner s had ac tual knowledg e of the co n d ition that caused the e mploy ee’ s injuries. See 178 S.W .3d at 109-10. The court he ld that knowledg e of the ex istence of the ladder was not knowle d ge of the da ng erous c ondition, and theref ore summar

y judgme nt ag ainst the employ ee’ s claim was a

ppropriate

. Id. at 110. The e mploy ee a lso argued that, bec ause § 95.003( 2) uses the disjunctive “or ,” the a ppellee c ould be held liable if it had know ledg e of the “d an g er” or “condition.” Id. The c ourt reje cted this argument and re gar d ed “dang er” and “c ondition” to be sy nony mous in the context of the statute. Id. The c ourt furthe r said “it would be a bsurd to require a prope rty owner to war

n of a condition without some knowledg e that the conditi on is dang erous.” Id. Simi larly , in this case, knowledg e that porta ble toilets with wheels wer e bei n g place d on the sidewalk ne ar the loading dock is akin t o knowledg e that employ ees are usinga ladde r on a jobsite. That knowledg e, alone , is not evidence of know l ed g e of a dang erous c ondition. There must be

ev i d en ce t h at t he owne r wa s awa re of how the ladde r, toilet, or other item wa s being used that

c re a te d a da ng e ro us c on dit ion . Co us ins ’s duty to wa rn wo uld on ly ari se if it kn e w that th e wh e e ls of the mob ile po rt a

ble toi le ts p la c e d n e ar t

he lo adi ng do ck we re un loc ke d. Th e re is n o d isp ute that mobile portable toilets with l ocked wheels plac ed nea r the loadingdock would not be a dang erous c ondition.

Th e re is n o e vid e nc e in the re c or d that Cous ins a c tua lly kn e w mob ile po rt a ble toi le ts

we re be ingpla c e d o n th e sid e wa lk w iththe ir wh e e ls u nlo c ke d. Ne ith e r Fr oma

n n or anyon e e lse t es t i fi edt h at m er el y p l ac i n g t h e t o i l et s o nt h e s i d ew al k cr ea t eda d an ger

o f t h ei r r o l l i n g an d

fa l l i n g.Al tho ug h F ro man d e nie d a ny kn ow le dg e of

su c h an agre e me nt, we mus t di sr e g ard thi s 5 evidenc e fa

voring the judg ment under the no-evide nce sta ndard. 8 Pe re z’s te sti mony

that th e re wa s an o ra l a g re e me nt a mon g the c on tr act or s to le ave the mob ile po rt a ble toi le ts o n th e sid e wa lk t o b e c le ane d, that F ro man k ne w o f t he a g re e me nt, and that Pere z

5 ins tr uc te d h is w or

ke rs to l oc k th e wh e e ls o f a mob ile po rt a

ble toi le t w he n pla c ingit o n th e sid e wa lk does not show that Cousins knew toilets were being place d on the sidewa lk with their whee ls free to roll. W e find no e vidence in the rec o rd showing that Cousins had actua l knowledg e that the mobile portable toilet was be ing pla ced on the sidewalk with its wheels unlocke d.

Be cause there is no evidence that Cousins actually knew of th e al l ege d dang erous

c on dit ion that c a

us e d Jam e s’ s in

jur ie s, the no -e vid e nc e mot ion fo r s umm a

ry jud g me nt w a s p ro pe rl y g rante d. Affir

med.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

30, 2008