What is Premises Liability?
Premises liability is legal responsibility for an injury that arises out of the
operation or ownership of property. In the context of nonsubscription,
premises-liability claims arise when an employee is injured by a “condition”
of the employer’s property as opposed to the acts or activities of a fellow
employee, a third party, or even the employee himself.
What Are the Elements of a Premises-Liability Claim?
In Texas, a premises owner does not guarantee the safety of its customers
or employees. Consequently, an employee is not automatically entitled to
recover for his injuries merely because the injury occurred on his
employer's property.
To prevail on a premises-liability claim against his employer, an employee
must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) Actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises by the
owner or occupier;
(2) That the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm;
(3) That the owner or occupier did not exercise reasonable care to reduce
or eliminate the risk; and
(4) That the owner or occupier's failure to use such care proximately
caused the plaintiff's injury.
In short, these four elements are typically referred to as: (1) notice; (2)
unreasonably dangerous condition; (3) failure to exercise ordinary care;
and (4) proximate cause.
How do Premises Liability and Unsafe Workplace Claims Relate?
Texas courts have not consistently ruled on whether a nonsubscriber
plaintiff must or may choose whether to pursue a premises-liability or
unsafe-workplace claim or whether the plaintiff can pursue them both.
Premises liability typically is more difficult to prove, since the Texas
Supreme Court requires that for the "notice" element, the plaintiff must
prove either that the defendant actually knew the hazard existed or that
the hazard was there for a sufficient amount of time that the defendant
should, in the exercise of reasonable care, have known of the hazard's
existence. Proving "unsafe workplace," on the other hand, merely requires
proving that the defendant was negligent in providing a safe workplace,
without regard to how long any particular hazard may have existed.
Until this issue is ultimately decided by the Texas Supreme Court, plaintiff
employees are likely to pursue both claims and then select the one that
affords the greatest recovery.
This issue currently is on appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in Brookshire
Grocery Co. v. Goss.
The Peavler Group, who represents numerous nonsubscribers, has filed
an “amicus” (friend of the court) brief in the Goss matter in an effort to
persuade the Court to grant review of the case. For links to the Goss
case, see below.
Premises liability is legal responsibility for an injury that arises out of the
operation or ownership of property. In the context of nonsubscription,
premises-liability claims arise when an employee is injured by a “condition”
of the employer’s property as opposed to the acts or activities of a fellow
employee, a third party, or even the employee himself.
What Are the Elements of a Premises-Liability Claim?
In Texas, a premises owner does not guarantee the safety of its customers
or employees. Consequently, an employee is not automatically entitled to
recover for his injuries merely because the injury occurred on his
employer's property.
To prevail on a premises-liability claim against his employer, an employee
must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) Actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises by the
owner or occupier;
(2) That the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm;
(3) That the owner or occupier did not exercise reasonable care to reduce
or eliminate the risk; and
(4) That the owner or occupier's failure to use such care proximately
caused the plaintiff's injury.
In short, these four elements are typically referred to as: (1) notice; (2)
unreasonably dangerous condition; (3) failure to exercise ordinary care;
and (4) proximate cause.
How do Premises Liability and Unsafe Workplace Claims Relate?
Texas courts have not consistently ruled on whether a nonsubscriber
plaintiff must or may choose whether to pursue a premises-liability or
unsafe-workplace claim or whether the plaintiff can pursue them both.
Premises liability typically is more difficult to prove, since the Texas
Supreme Court requires that for the "notice" element, the plaintiff must
prove either that the defendant actually knew the hazard existed or that
the hazard was there for a sufficient amount of time that the defendant
should, in the exercise of reasonable care, have known of the hazard's
existence. Proving "unsafe workplace," on the other hand, merely requires
proving that the defendant was negligent in providing a safe workplace,
without regard to how long any particular hazard may have existed.
Until this issue is ultimately decided by the Texas Supreme Court, plaintiff
employees are likely to pursue both claims and then select the one that
affords the greatest recovery.
This issue currently is on appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in Brookshire
Grocery Co. v. Goss.
The Peavler Group, who represents numerous nonsubscribers, has filed
an “amicus” (friend of the court) brief in the Goss matter in an effort to
persuade the Court to grant review of the case. For links to the Goss
case, see below.
Premises-Liability Claims When Employees Are Injured by a Condition of the Property |
copyright © 2007 Donna C. Peavler
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| Court of Appeals Opinion: Brookshire v. Goss, 208 S.W.3d 706 (Texarkana 2006) Texas Supreme Court Information Page for Goss appeal: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28002 Electronic Briefs filed in Goss appeal:
|
 |
Texas Nonsubscription. Answering your legal questions...