Court Opinion

ID: 9672349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:53:13.216954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:21.891415
License: Public Domain

CALVERT, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the judgment entered. I do so under the rule announced in Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., Tex.Sup., 371 S.W. *2952d 368, 378 (1963), defining the duty of an occupier of land to his invitees, as follows:
“If there are dangers which are not open and obvious, he is under a duty to take such precautions as a reasonably prudent person would take to protect his invitees therefrom or to warn them thereof. But if there are open and obvious dangers of which the invitees know, or of which they are charged with knowledge, then the occupier owes them ‘no duty’ to warn or to protect the invitees. This is so, the cases say, because there is ‘no duty’ to warn a person of things he already knows, or of dangerous conditions or activities which are so open and obvious that as a matter of law he will be charged with knowledge and appreciation thereof.”