Court Opinion

ID: 9857356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:31:21.136462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:29.582598
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I most respectfully dissent from the disposition made of this appeal by the majority. In the last paragraph of the majority opinion it is stated:
“We think it can reasonably be said as a matter of law that plaintiff had knowledge or an equal opportunity for knowledge with the defendant of all the acts or omissions which caused his injuries. By his own admissions he knew that the elevator had been operated with the guard gate open the day before the accident, and as bearing on his knowledge of this fact, on the day of the accident, in answer to a question:
“ ‘And you knew that when you went to the elevator on the second day, at the time you were injured?’ he replied
“ ‘Yes sir, I guess I did.’ ”
This statement of the facts I think is borne out by the record. . Plaintiff knew of the unguarded shaft, knew of the manner in which defendant operated the elevator. In my opinion in such a case defendant was guilty of no breach of duty owed to plaintiff as an invitee. This court held as follows :
“ * * • * a proprietor is liable only to an invitee for injuries sustained as a result of hidden defects and conditions known to him and unknown to the invitee, and that he is not liable for *178injuries caused by conditions of which the invitee has knowledge equal to that of a proprietor, and therefore an equal appreciation of the danger.” Blaugrand v. Paulk, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S. W.2d 947, loc. cit. 949.
In this case a writ was denied by the Supreme Court on the ground of no reversible error. The case simply reiterates a proposition of law laid down by several other Texas cases and by a number of text writers'.
In my opinion the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.