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

NO. 03-0 5 -00 700 -CV
Larry L. Richard, Indi vidu ally and as P ersonal Repre sentative of the Estate of L arry F r e e m an Ric har d, J r ., De c e as e d, Th e r e sa Ri c har d as Ne xtF r ie nd t o Br oo ke Ri c har d and Britni Richard, Minors, Brand i Richard and Larry F ree m an Richard, Sr. , Appellan ts
v. City of Austin d/b /a Austin E nergy Cor poration , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN50297 4 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N L arr y L . Richard, Individually

and as Persona l Represe ntative of the Estate of L arr y Fr eema n Richar d , J r., Decea sed, Ther esa Richa rd as Ne x t Frie nd to Brooke Richard a nd Br itni Richard, Minors, B randi Richar d, and L arr y Fr eema n Richard, Sr. ( c o ll e c ti v e ly , “the Richa rds”) sued the City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energ y Corporation (“t h e C i t y ”) for damag es ar ising out of L arr y Fr eema n Richard, Jr.’s death from a fa ll while working on proper ty owned by the City . The Richar ds alleg ed that the contractor was neg lige nt and that the C ity was responsible for the damag es ar ising there from. The trial court g rante d summary judgme nt for the City . The Ri ch ar d s co n t end that summary judgme nt was improper beca u s e there wa s some evidenc e that the City had ac tual kn ow le dg e of the da

ng e r or c on dit ion that c a

us e d Mr
. Ric ha

rd ’s de a th. We w ill a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.2 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND The City owned the H olly

Street Power Plant located in Austin, Texas. I n September 2002, the C ity solicited proposals for the demoli tion of two fue l oil tanks located at the pla nt. The City awa rded the demolition project to Alpha Tec hnical Servic es, an d t h e par ties entere d into a contra ct for de moliti on of the tanks. Mr. Richard w as an A lpha Tec hnical Servic es employ ee a nd
was wor king on the tank demolition when he died. M r. R i ch ard and a c o-worke r we re usingthe “stitch cut” me thod for the demolition. This demoli tion method involved using a blowtorc h to cut the steel roof

of a la rg e fue l oil st orag e tank into pi ece s that wer e then lowere d to the ground using
a c ra ne . Th e me tho d is re fe rr e d to as “s tit c h cut” be c a us e an in c h o r s o o f t

he me ta l is le ft

un c ut u nti l the piece is ready

to be lower ed to the g round. Jus t b ef o re the ac cident, Mr. Richa rd wa s in a personne l lift nex t to the roof of the tank. He exit ed the lift and w alked a cross the r oof to the ce nter of the tank. A t that t i m e, t h e ro o f h ad n ot been c ut into sections. W hile Mr. Richard w as on the roof, his co- worke r cut the a rea direc tly in front of the lift int o sections and lef t the sections balanc ed
on a cr oss beam supportingthe tank roof
. The sec tions were not mar ked or othe rwise identifie d as beingcompletely

cut from the roof. Una

war e that the r oof had be en cut into sec tions, Mr. Richard stepped on one of the unmar ked cut sections of steel plate while attempting to r eturn to the lift. The steel plate se ction tipped to one side, ca using Mr . Richard to fa ll forty fee t to his death. The Richar ds broug ht claims ag ainst the City and other s. The Richar ds alleg ed that the City was negli ge nt i n f a ili ngto p ro vid e Mr . Ri c ha rd a sa fe pla c e to w or

k, fa ili ngto p ro pe rl y supervis e t h e workplac e, fa iling to instruct re g ardingthe re cog nition and avoidance of unsaf e conditions, and failingto provide a proper fall ar rest sy stem, cover s, or guardr ail sy stems. Be ryl Ann3

Richard, Mr. Richa

rd’s mother, inter

vened asser

ting the same c ause of

action ag ainst the City . The City filed a no-evide nce motion for summary judgme nt pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e 166a(i), c ontending that chapte r 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedie s Code g overne d the City ’s liability

and that the Richa

rds and the inter

venor c ould not satisf

y t h e re q u irements of the statute. SeeTe x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C od e Ann. §§ 95 .0 01 -. 00 4 (We st 2 00 5) . Sp e c if ic a lly , th e City
a sse rt e d th a t th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e that th e City e xer c ise d o r r e ta ine d c on trol ov er t he mann e r i n which Mr. Richa

rd per formed his wor

k or that it had actua l know ledg e of the da ng er or condition that resulted in his death. See id. § 95.003.

The Richar ds and the interve nor filed a response and attach ed summary -judg ment evidenc e, including the Occ upational Safety and He alth Administration investigation ca se file, a n expert’s aff

idavit, and the deposition testimony of Timothy

Moore, the City ’s projec t manag er f or the d e mo li ti o np r o

je c t. T h e d is tr ic t c o urt gr a n te d th e Ci ty ’ s mo ti o nf

o r s u mm ar y ju d g me n t a

nd signe d an orde r stating that “no g enuine issues of mat er ial fac t exi st as to whether the City of Austin had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er or condition pursuant to Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 95.003.” The court e x presse d no opinion o n t h e “c o n t ro l ” g round asse rted in the City ’s
sum m ar y -j udg ment motion. The district court seve red the Richards’ c laim ag ainst the City from those asser

ted ag ainst the co-de fenda nts, and signe d a take -nothing judgme nt in t h e C i t y ’s favor. Th e Ric ha

rd s a pp e a l fr om that ord e r, c on te nd ing that the summa ry jud g me nt w a s im

pr op e r b e c a

us eCounsel for the inter venor f iled a letter

with this C ourt expres s i n g a d esire to “ join the 1 appea l.” The notice of appe al filed by the Richards is not a joint notice of a ppeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(c), nor

did the intervenor file her own notice of appe al. Consequently , althoug h this Court has jurisdict i o n o v er all parties to the trial cour t’s judgme nt, we ca

nnot reve rse the summar y judgme nt as to the intervenor
. Id. (appe llate cour t may not gr ant par

ty failing to f

ile notice of a

ppeal more fa vorable relief

than did trial court e x cept f or just cause ). 4 there was a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to whether the City had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er or condition that ca

used Mr. Richar d’s death. 1

STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW A no -e v i d ence summary

judgme nt is essentially

a pre trial direc ted ver dict, and we revie w it under a

leg al suffic iency

s t an dard. King Ranch, Inc. v . Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 750 (T e x. 20 03 ). Whe n a

pa rt y mov e s f or a no -e vid e nc e summa

ry jud g me nt u

nd e r r ule 16 6a (i ), he mus t
a sse rt that, a ft e r a de qu a te tim e fo r dis c ov e ry , the re is no e vid e nc e of on e or mor e e sse nti a l e le me nts of a c la im o r defe ns e on whic h th e a dv e rs e pa rt y wo uld have the burd e n o f p ro of a t tr ia l. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (i ); se e Fo rt W or th O ste op ath ic Ho sp ., In c . v . R e ese , 148 S.W .3d94, 99 (Tex. 2 0 0 4 ). A n o -evide nce summar y judgme nt is im proper

if the non-movant br ings f orth more than a sc intill a of pr obative evide nce to r aise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t with re s p ect to each of the c ha lle ng e d e le me nts . T e x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (i ); Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004). More tha n a s ci n t i l la of e vidence exis ts when the e vidence prese nted rises to a le vel th at woul d e na

ble re a so na

ble and fa ir -m ind e d p e op le to d if fe r i n th e ir

c on c lus ion s. King Ranch , 118 S.W. 3d a t 75 0- 51 . “ L e ss t ha n a sc int ill a of e vid e nc e e xists wh e n th e e vid e nc e is ‘so wea k as to do no more than c reate a mere s u rm i s e o r sus picion’ of a fac t.” Id. (quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)).5 DI SCU SSIO N I t is undisputed that the City owned the Holly Street Power Plant and that Mr. Richard
wa s a n e mpl oy e e of

Al ph a Te c hn ic a l Se rv ic e s, a

c on tr a c tor the City hir e d to di sma ntl e the fu e l oi l tanks at the plant. Nor

do the Richards dispute that c hapter 95 of the c ivil practice and re medies
c od e a pp lie s to the ir

c la im a g a ins t the City . Ch a pte r 9 5 is the Ric ha

rd s’ e xclu siv e re me dy

a g a ins t the City and pre cludes c ommon-law neg lige nce liability
. See Francis v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. , 13 0 S. W.3d 7 6, 88 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 03 , n o p e t.) . Ch a pte r 9 5 p ro vid e s th a t a pr op e rt y ow ne r i s no t lia

ble fo r the pe rs on a l inj ur

y , d e a th, or

pr op e rt y dama g e to a

c on tr a c tor

or his employ ees who construct, repa ir, renova te, or modify

an improveme nt to real prope rty , including inj ur ie s ari sin g fr om t

he fa ilure to p ro vid e a

sa fe wo rk

pla c e , unle ss: (1) the pr operty

owner exercises or r etains some contr ol over the manner in which t he work is perf ormed, other than 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 pr operty

owner had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er or co n d i t i o n re s u l t i n g i nt h e p er s o n al i n j ury , d ea th , o r p ro p erty

d am age and fa iled to adequately

war n.
Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. § 95. 00 3. Thus , und e r the statut e , ev ide nc e of bo th c on tr ol and actua l knowledg e is requir ed.

I n it s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt, the City a sse rt e d that the re wa s n o e vid e nc e it
re ta ine d c on tr ol o ve r t

he wo rk or ha d a c tua l kn ow le dg e of the da ng e r o r c on dit ion

re su lti ngin Mr. Richard’ s injury
. Reg arding actua l knowledg e, the City contends that the da

ng er or condition was the e x istence of

a deta ched ste el plate, unmar ked, and ba lance d on a bea m in an are a used f

or6

e nte ri ngand

e xitin g the pe rs onne l l if t. Th e Ric ha

rd s c ounte r t

hat th e da

ng e r w a s th e ov e ra ll demolition plan its elf, a

nd beca use the City

knew Al p h a T echnic al Service s was using the “stitch cut” method to demolish t h e s ec o n d tank, it had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er c ausing Mr. Richard’ s death.

The summary

judgme nt ev idence included the de position t estimony of Timothy Moore, the City ’s projec t manag er for t his demoliti on projec t. Moore testified that Alpha Tec hnical Service s orig inally

prese nted a de moliti o n p l an that contemplated using a shea rer method which involved using a shear er mounted on a “ba ckhoe ty pe devic e” that would cut the tank like a se t of larg e scissors. After the first tank had been demolished using this method, Alpha Te chnica l Services informed the Cit y that it was dissatisfied with the shear er it had f or the job bec ause instea d of using a scissor- like tool to cut the m etal, it had a “nibbler” with a sm all cutting se ction. Using this ty pe of s h e ar e r c a u s e d th e d e mo li ti o np r o c e s s to ta k e lo n g e r . M o o r e te s ti f

ie d th a t A lp h a

T e c h n ic al Service s informed him “that they wanted to c hang e their approa ch and they wer e g oing to use cutting torche s and main lifts to cut—take down the second tank.” Moore testified that while he “ knew they
wer e . . . g oing thr oug h and they wer e stitch-cuttingthe piece s and . . . bring ing the m down afte r they g ot the m cut fr e e ,” Al ph a Te c hn ic a l Ser vic e s did not

pr ov ide any

fu rt he r d e ta ils a

bo ut t he “ sti tc h c ut” demolition process. Ther e wa s no evidenc e that the “s t itch cut” method wa s substantially more dang erous than the shear er method, or that, if it wer e, Moore was a war e of that fac t. Moore testified that he did not watch the Alpha Te chnica l Services e mploy ees usingthe “stitch cut” method at the Holly Power Plant site until af

ter Mr. Richard’ s acc ident, but he understood the method to involve

“ wh e re y ou

g o thro ug h an d y ou c ut mos t of the pie c e of me ta l but you

le ave an in c h o r s o to c ome7

back in a nd just cut just bef

ore you’re rea dy

to bring the piece of metal down.” Moore testified that
e a c h c ut pie c e sat on

the be ams b e ne a th i t, o r o n a no the r p ie c e of

ste e l pl a te un til the wo rk e rs put a
cra ne clip on it and broug ht the piece down.

Th e e vid e nc e su

pp or ts a con c lus ion

that th e wo rk

pla c e “ c on dit ion ” le a din g to Mr. Richard’ s fall was the prese nce of an unstable pie ce of

steel plate c ompletely

cut, y et not removed f

rom the roof

, located a djace nt to the personnel lift, with no mar k i n g o r other notification that it was completely cut awa y from the r est of the r oof. Cf. City of A us tin v . Le

gge tt , 25 7 S .W .3d 4 56 , 4 70 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 08 , p e t. d e nie d) (“ [T]he re le va nt u nr e a so na bly dang erous c ondition in a premise liability case is g ener ally the condition at the time and plac e injury
occur s, not some antec edent condition or si tuation that helps cre ate a dang erous condition.”). The Richards pre sented no e vidence that the City had ac tual knowledg e of that condition. There is no evidenc e that Moore knew that ther e wa s an unstable stee l plate adjacent to the pe rsonnel lift or had any idea that Mr. Richa

rd and his co- worke r we re conductingthe demolition process in such a
manner as to cre ate the c ondition. To the c ontrary , Moore testified that the only time he observe d the de mol iti on

pr oc e ss w a s a ft e r t

he a c c ide nt. The Richar ds argue, howe ver, that the “dang er” that cause d Mr. Richard’ s death wa s the demolition plan itself, and that the City had actua l know ledg e that Alpha Te chnica l Services ha d decide d to switch from the shea rer method to the “stitch cut” me thod. The Richard s contend that the demolition plan using the “ stitch cut” method wa s “inhere ntly unrea sonably

dan gerous and unsafe , something the City was we ll awar e of.” For the demolition plan t o co n s t itute a “da ng er” within the meaningof the statute, howeve r, there must be evidenc e that (1) the demolition plan, even8

if executed prope rly , would cre ate a substantial risk of injury , or (2) it was li kely that the demolition p l anw o u l d

n o tb e e x e c u t e d

p r o p e r l y, i ns u c ha

m a n n e r a s t o c r e a t e a

s u b s t an t i a l r i s k

o f i n j u r y. Chapter 95 r equire s that the City have a ctual knowledg e of the condition or dang er. Th e Ric ha rd s r e ly on tw o d ocu men ts con tai nedin th e Occupat io nal S afet y andHe a lth Ad min istratio n inve sti g a tio n f ile a s e vid e nc e that the de mol iti on pla n wa s a “ da

ng e r. ” Th e fi rs t is a letter from the OSHA a

rea direc tor containingthe followin g s t at em en t : “The are a of the roof wh e re Mr . Ri c ha

rd , Sr. ha d park e d his pe rs onne l lift ba sk e t wa s n ot c ut u nti l a ft e r i t w a s ti me fo r h im to return to the personne l lift. This greatly incre ased the risk of fa lling throug h an unguarde d hole.” Whil e thi s letter sug g ests that the unsafe manner in which Mr. Richar d’s co- worke r executed the demolition plan increa sed the risk that he would fall, it is not evidence that the pl an itself, if it had been e x ecute d proper ly , would have c reated a substantial risk of i njury
. Nor is it evidence tending to show a li kelihood that this demolit ion plan would be executed imprope rly in an unsafe manner . The sec ond document on which the Richards rely is the OSHA Fatality /Catastrophe Report, which include s a fa ctual description of t he accident but does not comment on the demolition plan itself. The summary judgme nt evidence also includes the aff idavit of David T. L ashg ari, a n expert reta ined by the Richards. L ashg ari aver s that Alpha Tec hnical Servic es violated at least ten fede ral law s g overningworkplac e saf ety , and that these violations created an “ environment char acte ristically

identified by

the exist ence of sig nificant likelihood of serious injury or death to the worke r.” This stateme nt ma y be some e vidence that the demolition plan, as improperly car ried out in violation of feder al safe ty regulations, created a da ng er. It i s n o t , howeve r, evide nce that the9

d e m o l i t i o np l an , i f i t h a d b e e nd o n e p r o p e r l y, w o u l d h av e c r e a t e d

a s u b s t an t i a l r i s k

o f i n j u r y. L ashg ari a lso avers that “the employ er c ommitt ed the a bove re fer enc ed v i olations of the fe dera l OSHA law e ven thoug h the employ er kne w or should have known that demolition work is one of the most hazardous sub-spec ialty [si c] of the construc tion indust ry and that the a

bove re fer ence d laws and r egulations had bee n desig ned w i t h t he spec ific purpose and objec tive of re ducingthe extreme hazards inher ent i n demolition projec ts.” Whil e this statement may be some e vidence that Al ph a Te c hn ic a l Se rv ic e s k

ne w o r s ho uld

have kn own of the ha zar ds of de mol iti on

pr oje c ts g ener ally , it is not evidence t h at t h e C ity had ac tual knowledg e that the de moliti on plan, as descr ibed to it by

Alpha Te chnica l Services, e ntailed such da ng er. See Phillips v. Dow Chem. Co. , 1 8 6 S
. W
. 3 d

1 2 1 , 1 3 3 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n [ 1 s t Di s t
. ] 2 0 0 5 , n o p et
. ) ( s t at u t o ry ac tu al kn o wl ed ge repla ces pr e-c hapter

95 standard of

constructive know ledg e). N or is it e v id e n c e that Alpha Tec hnical Service s was likely

to car ry out the plan improperly
. W e c o n cl u d e t h at t h e r ec o rdco n t ai n s n o ev i d en ce th at th e C i ty h ad ac tu al kn o wl ed ge of the c on dit ion

that c a us e d M r. Ric ha

rd ’s de a th—

the un mark e d uns ta

ble pie c e of me ta l at th e e xit from the pe rsonnel lift. Nor does the rec ord contain evidenc e that the City had ac tual knowledg e that the demolition plan itself constituted a dang er within the meaningof the statute. The ref ore, the trial
c ourt did no t e rr in gra nti ngthe City ’s no -e vid e nc e mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt.
CO NC LU SION Be cause there is no evidence that the City had ac tu al k n o wl edge of the dang er or
c on dit ion that c a us e d M r. Ric ha

rd ’s de a th, we a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s summa ry jud g me nt.10 ________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Patterson and Pembe rton Affir med Filed: May

13, 2009