Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger
50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900, 228 S.W.3d 161, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 544 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A premises owner is not liable for injuries sustained by an invitee due to a condition that, as a matter of law, does not pose an unreasonable risk of harm, especially when the condition meets applicable safety standards, is clearly marked, and has no history of prior incidents or complaints.
Facts:
- Connie Alger visited Brinson Ford, Inc. to pick up someone's car.
- Alger exited the dealership through the front door, where a pedestrian ramp leads to the parking lot.
- A small portion of the ramp extended beyond the handrails to the sidewalk, with its highest point four inches above the sidewalk.
- The unrailed section of the ramp was marked by yellow paint along its edges and around the adjacent parking space.
- Brinson Ford had no record of anyone falling from the ramp in the nearly ten years since the business opened.
- Alger, upon reaching the end of the handrails, thought the ramp had ended, stepped off the unrailed portion, and fell.
- Alger's safety engineering expert, Jack T. Madeley, opined that the ramp was 'deceiving in appearance' and 'unreasonably dangerous,' despite acknowledging it met Texas Accessibility Standards and Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces requirements.
Procedural Posture:
- Connie Alger sued Brinson Ford, Inc. in the trial court (court of first instance) for premises liability.
- Brinson Ford filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence of a premises condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Brinson Ford's favor.
- Connie Alger appealed the trial court's decision to the court of appeals (intermediate appellate court) as the appellant, with Brinson Ford as the appellee.
- A divided court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding fact issues existed regarding the premises condition.
- Brinson Ford filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas (state's highest court) as the petitioner.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pedestrian ramp, which meets safety standards, has yellow markings, and has caused no prior injuries in ten years, pose an unreasonable risk of harm to an invitee who falls from a small unrailed portion?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, the pedestrian ramp did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to Connie Alger. The Court held that, as a matter of law, the ramp did not present an unreasonable risk of harm because the unrailed area met applicable safety standards, was outlined with yellow stripping (a common indicator of elevation change), and had a highest point of only four inches, less than an average step. Furthermore, Brinson Ford had no record of other customers being injured or complaining about the ramp's safety over a ten-year period. The Court explicitly dismissed the expert's 'unreasonably dangerous' conclusion as conclusory and thus no evidence of a premises defect. Citing CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, the Court reiterated that the duty of a premises owner is not that of an insurer, meaning a condition is not unreasonably dangerous merely because it is not foolproof, as established in Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high burden on plaintiffs in premises liability cases to demonstrate an unreasonable risk of harm. It clarifies that meeting safety standards, a lack of prior incidents, and obvious markings are strong indicators that a condition is not unreasonably dangerous, even if an injury occurs. The ruling also highlights that expert testimony must offer more than conclusory statements to withstand summary judgment, providing a crucial guideline for expert witness admissibility in Texas. Future cases will likely rely on this decision to uphold summary judgments for premises owners where conditions, though potentially leading to an injury, do not objectively meet the 'unreasonable risk of harm' threshold.
