Court Opinion

ID: 9672350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:53:13.225922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:22.050783
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion this case is ruled by A. C. Burton Co. v. Stasny, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 310 (wr.ref.); Acme Laundry Co. v. Ford, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 745 (wr.ref.n.r.e.) ; and Crawford v. Given Bros., Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 123 (wr.ref.n.r.e.). In so far as the question of duty is concerned, it seems to me that there is no material distinction between a fixed glass in an aperture so constructed as to have the appearance of an open door and a sliding glass door which appears to be open when it is closed. There is as much reason to anticipate that an inattentive guest would attempt to walk through the one as the other, and anyone who tries to walk through either will probably be injured. Only one basic difference occurs to me: the visitor could pass unharmed through the doorway if the door happened to be opened but would have no chance whatsoever of getting safely through the fixed glass. I do not see how the cited cases can be distinguished, as the Court says, on the ground that the evidence there failed to show primary negligence in the construction of the premises when that is the very question with which we are here concerned.
It also might be well to observe that this Court has never stated that the occupier of premises owes a duty of ordinary care which “remains unless it is in some manner discharged or removed.” In Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Tex.Sup., 371 S.W.2d 368, we said that “in a suit by an invitee against the occupier, the invitee must not only prove that he was injured as a proximate result of encountering a condition on the premises involving an unreasonable risk of harm, but he must also prove, as part of the plaintiff’s case, that the occupier owed him a duty to take reasonable precautions to warn him or protect him from such danger.”
The Court seems to base its holding, in the last analysis, on the fact that respondent did not have actual knowledge that the door he left open was closed. It fails, in my opinion, to consider and give proper weight to the knowledge with which respondent should be charged as a matter of law. Respondent testified that he knew he would probably be injured if he walked into the closed glass door. He knew that the door was made of clear and polished glass. He also knew that the handle and lock were in the frame, and that there were no tapes, designs or markings on the glass. He further knew that the door was made to open and close. He had used it for that purpose, and he certainly must have known that a door once opened does not necessarily remain open indefinitely. Respondent knew that the interior of the room was well lighted, and that the exterior lighting was subdued. If he did not realize that it was difficult to detect the presence of the glass from the outside under these circumstances, it seems fair that he should be charged with knowledge possessed by every child who has looked through a glass window at night from the darkened lawn into a lighted room of his home.
It is true that respondent did not know that the door he opened had been closed by his wife, but neither did petitioner. Respondent knew as much about the condition of the premises as petitioner knew or might have learned through the exercise of *296ordinary care, and in my opinion he is charged in law with appreciation of the danger encounted in using the glass door as he did. I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm that of the trial court.
GRIFFIN, HAMILTON and STEAKLEY, JJ., join in this dissent.