1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 28 5- CV F L OYD S M I T H AP P E L L ANT V . SH O FNER A U TO REPA I R, I N C . A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 1 7TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t F l o y d S m i th a p p e a l s fro m th e tri a l c o u rt’sg ra n t o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t o n h i s p re m i s e s l i a b i l i tyc l a i m a g a i n s t A p p e l l e e S h o fn e r A u to R e p a i r, I n c . B e c a u se w e h o l d th a t S h o fn e r h a d n o d u ty to p rote c t S m i th fro m ice in i ts p a r k i n g l o t , wea f f i r m.2 ... IHS Ceda r s Trea tm ent C tr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 143 S .W .3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); seeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (b ), (c). 2 I n 2 00 5, A r l i ngton, T exas exper i enced a “w i nt erst or m event ” bet w een 7: 00 a. m . on D ecem ber 7 and 2: 00 a. m . on D ecem ber 8. Th e st or m pr odu ced an accum ul at i on of i ce and s now on t he gr oun d i n t he ar ea. S hofneri s l ocat ed i n Ar l i ngt on. O n D ec em ber8 , 2005 , Sm i t h s l i ppe d on i cei n Shof ner ’ s par ki ng l otan d f el l , sust ai ni ng i nj ur i es. H e lat ersued Sh of ner , al l egi ng t hathe w as an e m p lo y e e o fS h o f n e r , t h a th e f e l l w h ile a t t e m p t in g t o m o v e a v e h ic le a th is em pl oye r ’ s r equ es t , an d t hathi s f al l w ascaus ed by i ce , w hi ch w asa dan ger ous con di t i on. S hofnerf i l ed a m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m enton th e g rou nd t hatas a m att erofl aw , na t ur al l y-occ ur r i ng i cei s notan unr ea so nab l y da nge r ous con di t i on a nd t her ef or e Shof ner had no dut y t o pr ot ec t Sm i t h f r om t he i ce . The t r i al co urtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm entf orShof ner , an d Sm i t h a ppe al ed. A de f end antw ho con cl us i vel y neg at es at l ea stonees se nt i al el em entof a c a u s e o fa c t io n ise n t it le d t o s u m m a r yj u d g m e n to n t h a tc la im . 2 W h e n r evi ew i ng a s um m ary j udgm ent , w e t ak e a s t r ue al l ev i den cef avo r abl e t o t he n o n m o v a n t, an d w e i n d u l g e ev e ry rea so n a b l e i n fere n c e an d res o l v e an yd o u b ts3 ... IHSCe da rsT rea tm en t C tr. , 143 S. W . 3d a t798. 4 ... W a l-Ma rt S to res, I

n c . v. Surra tt, 102 S . W . 3 d 437, 442 ( Tex. A pp. — East l and 20 03 , p et . d eni ed) ( “The pr em i ses ow ner / oper at oronl y ow es a d uty t o r edu ceorel i m i nat e c ondi t i onsw hi ch pos e a n unr ea so nab l e r i skof h a rm .” ).

5 ... S eeKeetch v. Kroger Co. , 845 S. W . 2d 262, 264 ( Te x. 1992 ) ( r equi r i ng pl ai nt i f fi n pr em i ses l i abi l i t y case t o est abl i sh pr em i ses ow ner ’ s act ual 3 i n th e n o n m o v a n t’s fa v o r. 3 S m i t h r ai ses t hr ee i ssues on appeal . I n hi s f i r sti ssue, Sm i t h ar gued t hat t h e r e w a s a d is p u t e d f a c tis s u e a b o u tw h e t h e ro rn o th is c la im o c c u r r e d . In h is se con d i ss ue, Sm i t h ar gue s t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by gr ant i ng Shof nera noevi den ces um m ary j udgm ent . I n hi s t hi r d i ssu e, S m i t h a r gue s t hathe est abl i shed t hatS hofnerw as hi s em pl oyeran d ow ed hi m a l egal d ut y. W e f i r st addr ess Sm i t h’ s t hi r d i ssue because i ti s di sposi t i ve. I n hi s pet i t i on, Sm i t h ar gued t hathe w as i nj ur ed “as a r esu l t o f a dan ger ousco ndi t i on”on Shof ner ’ s pr ope rt y. A pr em i se s ow nerdoe s notha ve a dut y t o r educe orel i m i nat e anyco ndi t i on o n t he pr em i se s t hatm ay be dang er ous; t he ow neronl y has a dut y t o addr ess a cond i t i o n th atposes an un re a s o n a b ler i s ko fh a r m. 4 Th us, i n a pr em i ses l i abi l i t y case, one el em entt hat t he pl ai nt i f fm us tes t abl i sh i s t he pr em i se s ow ner ’ s ac t ualorco ns t r uct i ve know l edge of a danger ous cond i t i on on t he p rem i ses t hatposed an u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s ko fh a r m. 5orcons tr u ct i ve know l edge of dang er ous cond i t i on on pr em i ses t hatposed an

u n rea so n a b l e ri sko f ha rm a n d th a t o w n e r d i d n o t e x e rci se re a so n a b l e c a re to re d u c e o r e l i m i n a t e t h e ri s k , p ro x i m a te l yc a u s i n g p l a i n ti ff’s i n j u ri e s ); see al so Bri nson Fo rd, I

nc. v. A l

ger, 2 2 8 S .W .3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 7 ). 6 ... 102 S. W . 3d a t445. 7 ... See Gr

if f i n v. 1438, Ltd. , No. 2- 03- 00255
- CV , 2004W L1595 787, at*4 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h Jul y 15 , 20 04 , no pet . ) ( m em . op. ) ( hol di ng “as a m att erofl aw , tha tI H O P di d notha ve a d ut y t o pr ot ec tG r i f f i n f r om t he n a tu ra l a c c u m u l a ti o n o f fro z e n p re c i p i ta ti o n o n i ts p a rk i n g l o t” ).

8 ... See i

d. ; se e al

soM. O . D ental

Lab v. Rape , 139 S. W . 3d 671, 676 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d e c lin in g t o h o ld la n d o w n e r s a c c o u n t a b le f o rn a t u r a lly a c c u m u l a ti n g m u d th a t re m a i n s i n i ts n a tu ra l s ta te ).

9 ... S e eGr

if f in , 2004W L1595 787, a t*4. 4 I n Surra tt, t he East l and C ourtofA ppeal s hel d t hata pr em i ses ow ner “d oesnotha ve a d ut y t o pr ot ec ti t s i nv i t ee s f r om co ndi t i onsca us ed by a nat ur al accum ul at i on of f r ozen pr eci pi t at i on on i t s par ki ng l otbecause such an a c c u m u l a ti o n d o e s n o t c o n s ti tu te a n u n re a s o n a b l yd a n g e ro u s c o n d i ti o n .” 6 T h i s courtsub sequentl y addr essed t he i ssue ofi ce accum ul at i on i n a par ki ng l otas a p rem i se s d e fec t. 7 I n Gr if f in , w e ag ree d w i th the rea so n i n g o f Surra tta n d h e ld t hatas a m at t erofl aw , a pr em i ses ow nerhad no d ut y t o pr ot ectan i nvi t ee fr o m n a tu ral l y -oc c u rr i n g i c e ac c u m u l a ti o n i n a p a rki n g l o t. 8C o n s e q u e n t l y , we h e l d tha t t h e re w a s n o ev i d e n c e tha t t h e d e fen d a n t pre m i se s o w n e r f a i l e d to exe r ci ser ea so nab l e c ar e t o r edu ce or el i m i nat e t he r i skca us ed by a co ndi t i on p o s i n g a n u n re a s o n a b l e ri s ko f h a rm . 910 ... See, e. g. , Fai r v. Scott& W

hite Mem ’

l Hosp. , No . 0 3
- 0 6
- 0 0 2 1 1 - CV , 200 8 W L 238801 8, at*2 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n June 13, 2008 , pe t . f i l ed) ( m em . op. ) ( hol di ng tha tde f end ant s di d notm ee tt hei rs um m ary j udgm ent b u rd e n a s to w h e th e r i c e p l a i n ti ff s l i p p e d o n w a s i n i ts n a tu ra l c o n d i ti o n ).

11 ... S e eGr

if f in , 2004W L1595 787, a t*4. 12 ... Kroger

Co. v. Elwood, 1 9 7 S .W .3 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 4(T e x . 2 0 0 6 ). 13 ... Id. ; Brookshi

re Grocery Co. v. G oss , 262 S . W . 3d 793, 794 ( Tex. 20 08 ) ( hol di ng t hat because dang er at i ssue w as com m onl y know n, em pl oyer h a d n o d u t yt o w a r n e m p lo y e e s o fr is ko rp r o v id e s p e c ia liz e d t r a in in g t o a v o id i t). 5 I n t hi s ca se, S hof ners ubm i t t ed evi den cet hatt he i cei n t he par ki ng l ot occ ur r ed nat ur al l y as t he r es ul t of a w i nt er st or m , an d Sm i t h di d notdi sp ut e t he i ssue. 10Fo l l ow i ng Gr if f in , w e t her ef or e h ol d t hatna t ur al l y- occ ur r i ng i cei n a par ki ng l otdoes notco ns t i t ut e a n unr ea so nab l y da nge r ousco ndi t i on un dert he l aw , an d Shof nerco ns equ ent l y ha d no dut y t o pr ot ec ti nvi t ee s, i ncl udi ng Sm i t h, f r om t he i ce. 11 S m i th arg u e s, h o w e v e r, th a t b e c a u se h e w a s a n em p l o y e e , i n ad d i ti o n to th e d u ty o w e d to h i m a s an i n v i tee , S h o fn e r o w e d h i m a d u ty to p rov i d e a s a fe w o rkp l a c e . S m i th i s c o rr e c t t h a t an em p l o y e r th a t i s n o t a s u b sc ri b e r t o w o r k e r ’s c o m p e n s a t io n h a s a c o m m o n la w d u t yt o u s e o r d in a r yc a r e in pr ovi di ng a saf e w or kpl ace. 12B u t an em p l o y e r is n o t a n i n su rer o f i ts em pl oye es ’ s af et y, an d a n e m pl oye rha s no du t y t o w ar n a n e m pl oye e o f dang er s t hatar e com m onl y know n oral r eady app r eci at ed by t he em pl oyee. 1314 ... S e eBro o ksh i reGro c ery , 262 S. W . 3d a t794. 15 ... See W

ithrowv. S tate Far

m Ll oyds , 990 S. W . 2d 432 , 437– 38 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 199 9, pe t . de ni ed) ( af f i r m i ng s um m ary j udgm enton c aus e o f ac t i on no ts peci f i ca l l y a ddr es se d i n m ova nt ’ s m ot i on w her e r eve r si ng t he sum m ar y j udg m entw oul d be m eani ngl ess because om i t t ed cause o facti on w as p r e c l u d e d a s a ma t t e ro fl a w) ;s eeal soQ ui cksi lver Res . , I nc. v. Rel

i ant Ener gy S ervs. , I

nc. , N o . 2 -0 2 -0 0 2 4 9 -C V , 2 0 0 3 W L2 2 2 1 1 5 2 1 , a t * 4(T e x . A p p .— F o rt W ort h Sept . 25, 2003 , no pe t . ) ( m em . op. ) ( hol di ng t hatbe ca us e a ppe l l ant coul d not r ecoveron def ense, r ever sal ofsum m ar y j udg m enton gr oun d t hat m o ti o n fa i l e d to a d d re s s i t w o u l d b e m e a n i n g l e s s ). 6 I n t hi s ca se , Shof nerar gue d i n i t s m ot i on f orsum m ary j udgm entt hatt he i c yco n d i ti o n s w e re o p e n an d o b v i o u s. I t i n tr o d u c e d e v ide n c e to s u p p o rti ts c l a i m tha t t h e i c yco n d i ti o n s w e re w e l l -pu b l i c i ze d i n ad v a n c e an d o b v i o u s to obser ver s, and i n S m i t h’ s ow n af f i davi ti n hi s r esponse t o t he m ot i on, h e st at ed t haton h i s w ay i n t o w or k t hatm or ni ng, “t he w ea t herw ascol d w i t h snow an d i ce . ” B ec au se t he ev i de nc e dem on str ated t ha t t he i cy co nd i t i on s w e re com m onl y k now n a nd w er e appr ec i at ed by Sm i t h, and be ca us e t he dan gerof i c e i s c o m m o n l yap p rec i a ted , S h o fn e r ha d n o d u ty to w a rd him w i th res p e c t t o t he i ce. 14 A ccor di ngl y, S m i t h w as precl uded f r om r ecover i ng on t he t heor y t hat S h o fn e r o w e d h i m a d u tya s a n e m p l o y e r w i th re s p e c t to th e i c e , a n d th e re fo re th e tria l c o u r td i d n o t e rr b yg ra n ti n g s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t fo r S h o fn e r. 15 W e over r ul e Sm i t h’ s t hi r d i ssue.16 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 1. 7

B e c a u s e w e h a v e h e l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yg ra n ti n g s u m m a ry j udg m enton t he i ssue ofdut y, w e do not r each S m i t h’ s r em ai ni ng i ssues. 16 H avi ng ove r r ul ed Sm i t h’ s t hi r d i ss ue, w hi ch i s di sp os i t i ve, w e a f f i r m t he tr i a l co u rt ’s su m m a ry j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 9, 2009