Opinion ID: 895212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Premises Liability v. Negligent Activity

Text: JUSTICE WAINWRIGHT would reverse because the case should have been submitted to the jury under a negligent-activity theory. For several reasons, we disagree. As to landowners, we have recognized negligent-activity and premises-liability theories of liability. [49] Smith believed both theories were applicable to his case, but Del Lago objected to the submission of a negligent-activity theory. The trial court agreed and only submitted a premises-liability question. Del Lago cannot now obtain a reversal on grounds that the jury should have decided the facts under a theory of liability that Del Lago itself persuaded the trial court not to submit to the jury. [50] Even if Del Lago had preserved this ground for reversal in the trial court, neither Del Lago's petition nor briefs to us mention it, and we should not stretch for a reason to reverse that was not raised. [51] This ground for reversal was waived. Ignoring preservation of error problems, the case was properly submitted on a premises-liability theory. We have repeatedly treated cases involving claims of inadequate security as premises-liability cases. [52] Today's case, largely based on Del Lago's failure to properly use its security resources, does not warrant different treatment. We have recognized that negligent activity encompasses a malfeasance theory based on affirmative, contemporaneous conduct by the owner that caused the injury, [53] while premises liability encompasses a nonfeasance theory based on the owner's failure to take measures to make the property safe. [54] This case was properly tried and submitted as a premises-liability case, as Smith primarily complained of Del Lago's nonfeasanceits failure to remedy an unreasonably dangerous condition for ninety minutes and failure to react promptly once the fight started. The lines between negligent activity and premises liability are sometimes unclear, since almost every artificial condition can be said to have been created by an activity. [55] Smith complained of some conduct that might be cognizable as a negligent-activity claim, such as Del Lago's decision to move the patrons through a single exit immediately before the fight erupted, but Del Lago persuaded the trial court not to give Smith an alternative negligent-activity question. The error in not allowing Smith to pursue a separate negligent-activity claim, if any, occurred at Del Lago's behest. Even as to the allegation that we herded them out the door, Del Lago argued at the charge conference that this evidence did not support a negligent-activity claim because [t]here is no direct relation between Del Lago's conduct and Brad's injury. Further, the evidence regarding the bar staff's affirmative conduct was relevant to issues of negligence and causation under the premises-liability claim, since Smith could and did properly contend under this theory that instead of using due care to make the premises safe by calling security or closing early, Del Lago made the unreasonably dangerous condition worse by continuing to serve drinks and funneling the hostile factions into closer physical contact. In any event, Del Lago makes no argument that the trial court improperly admitted evidence. Finally, JUSTICE WAINWRIGHT does not explain what elements of a negligent-activity claim were not presented in the jury charge. To impose liability, the jury was required under the charge to find that Del Lago failed to exercise ordinary care to make an unreasonably dangerous condition safe, that ordinary care means the degree of care that would be used by an owner or occupier of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances, and that this failure to use due care proximately caused Smith's injury. The trial court was concerned about giving Smith two bites at a negligence verdict in the charge, and we think it correctly noted that under the single question presented, Smith would be able to argue exactly what [he has] argued in support of negligent activity.