i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 8- 00 49 0- CV Ba rbar a Jean F OREMAN and Ste ve n Ca

rl F or e man, I nd ivi du a lly and as Repr esentatives of the Estate of Courtney Rae F orema

n, Ap pe lla nts
v . ALLEN KELLE R COMP ANY ,

Appellee Fr om the 216th J udicial District Court, Gillespie County , Texas

Trial Court No. 11,331 Honora ble Stephen Ables, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 31, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED T h i s i s ana

p p e a l f r o ma s u m m ar y j u d g m e n ti n

f av o r o f t h e d e f e n d an t , A l l e nK e l l e r

C o mp an y, in a pre mise liabilit y

case . We reve rse the judg ment and re mand the ca use to the trial cour

t.04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Ba rbar a J ean Fore man and Steven C arl Forema n broug ht this wrong ful death a nd survival action af ter their da

ug hter Courtney

For eman dr owned whe n the car i n which she was a passeng er left Old San Antonio Road and slid into the Pederna les River. The F orema ns sued Allen Ke ller Com pa ny (“ Al le n K e lle r” ), a lle g ingit c re a te d a n unr e a so na

bly da ng e ro us c on dit ion

tha t p r o xima te ly
cause d Courtney ’s death. T h e b r i d g e w h e r e t h e a c c i d e n to c c u r r e d i s o w n e d

an d m a i n t a i n e d

b y G i l l e s p i e C o u n t y. Approa chingthe bridg e fr om the south, the Old San Antonio Roa d makes a sharp lef t-hand turn a s it de scends towards the river. B efor e June 2003, there wa s a fa irly steep e mbankment on the rig ht side of the r oad alongthe curve on the a pproac h to the bridg e. The re w as a shor t gua rdra il ex tending from the southea st corner of the bridg e to the emba nkment. There was a small ga p of five f

eet or less betwee n the g uardr ail and the e mbankment – not wide enough for a car to pass throug h. I n 2003, Gillespie County contra cted with Allen Ke ller to perf orm flood and e rosion control
wo rk at the bridg e whe re the acc ident occur red. A mong othe r thing s, the contra ct ca lled for the construction of a concr ete pilot channel to re route dra inag e fr om the roadside into the r iver at a point
awa y from the c oncre te hea dwalls of the br idge . The plans c alled for the cha nnel to b e fi v e feet wi de , w ithfi ve fe e t of

sta bil ize d e art

h f ill on e a c h side of the c ha nn e l. I n p e rf or min g the c on tr a c t, Allen Keller

excavated at least twenty

cubic yards of

ear th from the emba

nkment alongthe rig ht side of the ro a d at th e c ur

ve . Af te r All e n Ke lle r co mpl e te d its w or k, a fi ve -f oo t w ide c on c re te c ha

nn e l, wi th fi ve fe e t of sta

bil ize d fil l on eith e r s ide , le d f ro m th e ro a d to the ri ve rb ank . T he old g ua rd ra il
re ma ine d; ho we ve r, the g a p be tw e e n the g ua

rd ra il and the e mba

nk me nt wa s now app rox imate ly04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 3- fifteen fee t wide. Allen Ke ller complete d its work in J une 2003. The work wa s inspected a nd
acc epted by

the County , and it paid Allen Ke ller for the work. On a ra iny e ve nin g in Janu ary 20 04 , Court ne y F or e man w a s tr ave lin g on Ol d Sa n A nto nio Road with her boy friend, Jim R obbins, and a friend, Ga rre tt Mil ls. Robbins , who was not fa miliar wi th t he ro a d, wa s d

ri vin g . As he wa s n e g oti a tin g the tur n o n th e a pp ro a c h to the br idg e , h is t ir e s sl id on dirt or gra

vel on the wet road. I nstead of completing the cur ve to the lef

t and cr ossing the br idge , the ca r slid for war d, skidded off the road, a nd slid along the pilot channel to the rive rbank. The car had almost stopped when it re ache d the bank, but then slowly slid over the edg e into the river throug h the newly

cre ated g ap betwee n the end of the g uardr ail and the e mbankment. Robbins and Mills were a

ble to exit the ca

r, but Courtney

was not, and she drowne d. The F orema

ns filed suit ag ainst multi ple def endants, a lleg ing pr emise def ect a nd neg lige nce claims. Only

their pre mise defe ct claim ag ainst Allen Keller rema ins. A fter discovery , Allen Keller f i l e d b o t ha t r a d i t i o n a l an d a n o - e v i d e n c e m o t i o nf o r s u m m ar y j u d g m e n to ng r o u n d s i to w e d n o d u t y, it did not breach a

ny duty , and its a ctions did not proxi mately cause Courtney ’s death. The trial cour t g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt w ith out st a tin g its re a so ns . T he F or e mans a pp e a l. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW We r e vie w a

summa ry jud g me nt de novo
. Va lenceOp e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). We will affirm a tr aditional summary judgme nt only

if the m ovant established there are no g enuine issues of m ater ial fac t and it is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law on the g rounds expressly set forth in the motion. Browning v. Prostok , 165 S.W .3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2005). We will affirm a judg ment based on a no-evide nce motion if the non-movant fa iled to present more04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 4- than a sc intill a of pr o b at ive evidenc e to ra ise a g enuine issue of materia l fac t on the challeng ed element. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004)
. I n our re view, we take a s true a ll evidence favor able to the nonmovant, and we indulge ever y rea sonable infe renc e and r esolve any doubts in the evidence in favor of the nonmovant. Scienc e S p ec t r u m, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W .2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997). D I S CUS S I ON Dut y I n its traditional moti on for summary judgme nt, A ll e n

K e ll e r c o nte n d e d

it owed the F orema

ns no duty as a matter of law

beca use (1) “the a ccide nt in question did not occur on pr emises owned, occupie d or controlled by Allen Keller ,” and ( 2) it perf ormed the w ork in ac cord an ce with the
c on tr a c t and the wo rk wa s a c c e pte d by the c ounty . T he F or e mans a lle g e d A lle n K e lle r w a s li a ble for c reating a

dang erous c ondition on premises adjac ent to the hig hway and fa iled to make it safe
. Under Texas law, one who cre ates a dang erous condition ma y owe a duty to make the pre mises safe, even if he is no long er in c ontrol of the prope rty at the time of the injury
. Lefmark Manage ment Co.
v . O ld , 946 S .W .2 d 5 2, 53 4 ( Te x. 19 97 ); Scienc e Spec trum , 941 S.W .2d at 912. An indepe ndent contra ctor who ha s cre ated a dang erous c ondition on real prope rty is not relieve d of any

duty of ca re to the public mere ly

beca use his work is acc epted or beca use his contra ct did not require him to do the work r equire d to make the pr emises safe
. Strakos v. Ge hring , 3 6 0 S. W. 2 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 0
- 9 4 ( T e x. 19 62 ). B e c a

us e Al le n K e lle r’ s mo tio n d id no t a dd re ss wh e the r it c re a te d a da ng e ro us c on dit ion , it
w a s n o te n t i t l e d

t o a t r a d i t i o n a l s u m m ar

y j u d g m e n to nt h e g r o u n d i to w e d n o d u t y.04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 5- Allen Keller

also soug ht a no-e vidence summary judgme nt on the duty

element. An independe nt c ontrac tor who is put in control of the pr emises by the owner

is under the same duty

as the owner
. City of

Denton v. Page , 701 S.W .2d 831, 834 (Tex. 1986). One in c ontrol of land adja cent to a highw ay wh o c re a te s an e xcavatio n o r o the r ar tif ic ia l con dit ion

that po se s an unr e a so na

ble ri sk to u se rs of

the hig hwa y

ow e s a duty to t ho se wh o e nc ounte r t

he c on dit ion

a ft e r t ra ve lin g wi th
re a so na ble c are on

the highw ay

and fo re se e a bly de viatin g fr om t

he highw ay in the or din ary c ours e of trave l. Mi litar

yHi gh way W ate r S up ply Cor p. v . M or in , 1 56 S.W. 3d 56 9, 57 0 ( Te x. 20 05 ); City of M c Al le n v . D e La G ar

za , 898 S.W. 2d 80 9 ( Te x. 19 95 ); R E S TA TE ME NT (S EC OND ) O F T OR TS § 368 (1965). In deter

mining whe ther a deviation i s rea sonably to be ex pecte d in the ordinary course of trave l, we consider fac tors such as the distance betwee n the highw ay and the condition, the cha rac ter and use of t he highway , and the nature and acce ssibili ty of the c ondition. Mo rin , 156 S.W .3d at 573; R E S TA TE ME NT (S EC OND ) O F T OR TS § 368, cmt. h (1965). To de feat Allen Keller ’s no evidenc e motion with respect to whethe r a duty was owed, the For emans wer e require d to present more than a scintilla of evide nce that Robbins was driving w i t h re as onable c are and that his leavingthe roadw ay was a fore seea ble deviation in the ordina ry course of trave l. There is no posted speed limit on the relatively s t ra i gh t p o rtion of Old San Antonio Road leadingto curve . The Texas D epar tment of Public Saf

ety office r’s acc ident repor t states the spee d limit was ther efor e fifty -five miles pe r hour. Robbins and M i l l s t es t i fi ed that bec ause of the wet conditions, Robbins was driving between twenty -five and t hirty -five miles pe r hour on that por tion of t h e r o a d
. A t t

h e to p o f th e h il l, ju s t b e f

o r e th e c u r

v e le a d in g d o w nto th e b r id g e , w e r e s igns indicating a lef

t curve ahea d and post ing a spee d limit of twenty miles per hour. Robbins testified04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 6- he had slowe d down to about twenty -five miles pe r hour whe n he sawt h e s i gn indicating the left
curve . He testified he continued to slow down as he g ot to the curve , and had his foot on the br ake as he w ent into the curve . Robbins st ated the c ar star ted sliding a

nd it felt as if it was skidding on pebbles or grave l. Robbins t urned the steering whee l, but instead of turning left, the ca r slid forwa

rd, off the r oad. Robbins and Mills both testified t he car was moving very slowly as i t left the roa d, and they thought it was g oing to stop. Robbins testi fied he did not reca ll ever ha ving dr iven that portion of Old San Antonio Road befor e the nig ht of the accident. Howeve r, t he summary judgme nt evidence includes the testimony of witnesses who use the country road regularly and are familiar with its conditions. They testified t h at s an d , d i rt , an d gra v el re gu l ar l y m i gra t e ac ro s s t h e ro ad an d ac cu m u l at e o ni t . Al t h o u ght h e s i gn at the top of the hill advises slowingto twenty miles per hour f

or th e cu rve, one local re sident testified he take s the curve at two miles per hour be cause of its dang er. D uring wet conditions, the
ro a d b e c ome s v e ry

mud dy and sli c k, e sp e c ia lly

a t th e c ur ve. L arry Ca sb e e r, wh o li ve s o n th e hil l
a bo ve the br idg e , te sti fi e d h e pr e vio us ly ha d s e e n c ars sli de of

f t he ro ad at th e curv e. I n th e pa st, howeve r, vehic les simply slid int o the embankme nt. After revie wing the rec ord as a whole and vie wing the summary judgme nt evidence in the proper light and a

pply ing a ll r easona

ble infere nces in f

avor of the nonmovant, we hold there is more than a sc inti ll a

o f e v id e n c e th a t R o b b in s f o r e s e e a b ly d e v iate d f r o m t h e r o a dw ay

in th e o r dinary
course of trave l and while drivingwith rea sonable c are . Acc ording ly , Allen Keller was not entitled to s umm ary

jud g me nt o n n o d

uty g ro un ds
.04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 7- Breach The F orema

ns next contend they

produce d summary

judgme nt evidence r ai s i ng a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t about whether Allen Keller

brea ched its d u ty . Allen Keller excavated the natura l barrie r betwe en the road and the river and opene d a fifte en-f

oot wide pathwa

y direc tly from t h e cu rv e in t h e r o adt o t h e r i v er . C as b ee r t es t i fi edi tap p ea re d t o h i mAl l en Ke l l er

wa s b u i l d i n g a “boat ramp” from the road to the river. H e testified he asked the worke rs whethe r they wer e g oing to put up a g uardr ail, and g ot the impression they wer e not. Casbee r t old Allen Keller ’s employ ees it “was a n acc ident waiting to ha

ppen.” Allen Keller ’s principal, Kory Keller , testified he r ecognized the re sulting g ap betwee n the pre- exis ting g uardr ail and the embankment was larg e enoug h for a ca r to travel throug h. We hold the Fore mans produce d sufficie nt evidence to raise a materia l fac t qu e sti on on the iss ue of wh e the r All e n Ke lle r cr e a te d a c on dit ion that po se d a

n unr e a so na

ble ri sk to users of the roadw ay

acc identally

broug ht into contact with it and failed to make it safe. Prox imate

Caus e Th e fi na l g ro un d fo r Al le n Ke lle r’ s mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt wa s that la c k o f p ro xima te
c a us e wa s e sta

bli sh e d a s a

matte r o f l aw o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly , th e re wa s no e vid e nc e Al le n K e lle r’ s a c ts or omissions prox imately cause d Courtney ’s death. Specifica lly , Allen Keller argued ther e wa s no evidenc e of the cause -in-fa ct prong of proxi mate cause. Cause-in-f act is shown if the ac t or omission
was a substantial fac tor in bring ing a bout the injury , without which t h e h ar m would not have
occur red. Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas , 907 S.W .2d 472, 277 (Tex. 1995)
. Had Allen Keller not excavated the e mbankment, the ca r would have slid int o the embankment and, perhaps, the pr ee xistin g g ua

rd ra il. B e fo re Al le n K e lle r’ s w or k, the re wa s in su ff

ic ie nt s pa c e be tw e e n th e g ua rd ra il04
- 09
- 00 49 0- CV

- 8- and the e mbankment for a car to go into the r iver. Ro b bins and Mills bot h testified the ca r had almost stopped when it rea ched the river ba nk. Robbins felt “sure” an extended guardr ail would have stopped the ca

r fr om going i n t o t h e water. Kor y Keller ag ree d in his deposition t hat an e x tended g ua rd ra il c ou ld have pr e ve nte d Cour tne y ’s dr ow nin g . T he F or e man’ s e ng ine e ri nge xpe rt state d in his re po rt tha t “ the c los ing of the op e nin g be tw e e n the br idg e and the ne ar ve rt ic a l e mba nk me nt w ith
an anc hored guardr ail sy stem would provide retention of l ow-spee d vehicles ne g otiating this sharp 20 mph c ur ve .” Th e F or e mans pr od

uc e d some e vid e nc e fr om wh ic h a f a c t f ind e r c ou ld r e a so na

bly conclude Allen Keller ’s re moval of t he embankment and failure to install an ef fec tive repla ceme nt barr ier be tween the roadw ay and the r iver wa s a substant i al fa ctor in bring ing a bout Courtney ’s fore seea ble drowningdeath. Acc ording ly , Allen Keller was not entitled to summary judgme nt on the g round there was no proximate cause
. F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e re ve rs e the jud g me nt of the tr ia l c ourt and re mand the c a us e to that court for

further proce eding s.
Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice