CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen
15 S.W.3d 97, 2000 WL 144441 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A premises owner is not liable for injuries caused by a condition that deteriorates over time or is subject to incidental damage, unless there is actual or constructive knowledge that the specific condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm at the time of injury; general knowledge of potential deterioration or past incidents, or the availability of a safer alternative, does not, by itself, establish such knowledge.
Facts:
- CMH Homes, Inc., operating as Luv Homes in Tomball, Texas, sold mobile homes and had a supply shed.
- The supply shed's only entrance was accessed by a stand-alone unit consisting of three steps leading to a platform, made of a metal frame, metal braces, and wooden treads, placed flush against the entrance but not secured to the mobile home.
- Kirk Daenen, a mobile home parts delivery driver, had delivered parts to the Luv Homes supply shed approximately twenty times prior to his injury.
- On the day of the injury, Daenen backed his bob-tail truck up to the shed entrance, covering the lower steps, and intended to drop directly from the truck bed onto the platform.
- While carrying his second seventy-pound box, Daenen stepped off the truck, the step and platform unit swayed from side to side, and he felt a sharp pain in his back, causing him to drop the box.
- Prior to Daenen's injury, CMH had replaced similar step and platform units multiple times, as they would become unstable due to heavy use over twelve to fifteen months.
- The steps were also occasionally hit by trucks and replaced if they could not be repaired, though there was no evidence the unit Daenen used had been hit.
- After Daenen's injury, CMH installed an entirely metal step and platform unit that remained in use and stable for about three and a half years without needing replacement.
Procedural Posture:
- Kirk Daenen sued CMH Homes, Inc. in trial court on a premises liability theory.
- The jury found in favor of Daenen and awarded $853,278 in actual damages.
- The trial court added prejudgment interest and rendered a judgment on the verdict for Daenen against CMH in the amount of $1,043,873.10.
- CMH Homes, Inc. appealed this judgment to the intermediate appellate court (Court of Appeals), where CMH was the appellant and Daenen was the appellee.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- CMH Homes, Inc. then sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas, where CMH is the appellant and Daenen is the appellee.
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 premises owner have actual or constructive knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm where a standalone step and platform unit requires periodic replacement due to wear and tear or has been damaged by trucks in the past, without specific evidence that the particular unit causing injury was inherently dangerous or that the owner knew of its specific unstable condition at the time of injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Owen
No, a premises owner does not have actual or constructive knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm under these circumstances. The court held that CMH Homes, Inc. did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the step and platform unit posed an unreasonable risk of harm. The duty of a premises owner to an invitee is not that of an insurer; rather, it is to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers from conditions on the land of which the owner knew or, through reasonable care, would discover. The court rejected the argument that knowledge of general deterioration over time or past incidents of damage from trucks hitting the steps constituted knowledge of an inherently dangerous condition or an unreasonable risk of harm from the outset. Many building materials naturally deteriorate, and this does not mean they pose an unreasonable risk from the moment of installation. The previous step units had been safely used for 12-15 months before becoming unstable, indicating they were not inherently dangerous. The court also clarified that installing a safer, all-metal unit after the injury does not, by itself, prove the original unit was unreasonably dangerous or that CMH had prior knowledge of such a risk. For constructive knowledge, the dangerous condition must have existed for a sufficient time for the owner to have discovered it upon reasonable inspection. The court found no evidence that the specific unit Daenen used was unstable for a sufficient duration to impute constructive notice to CMH, nor evidence that CMH failed to inspect or would have discovered any damage from a truck to this particular unit through reasonable inspection. The court disapproved of the court of appeals' attempt to limit the 'time notice' rule to 'slip and fall' cases, emphasizing that constructive knowledge serves as a substitute for actual knowledge across premises liability claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for establishing actual and constructive knowledge in Texas premises liability cases, particularly for conditions that might degrade over time or be subject to incidental damage. It reinforces that premises owners are not strict insurers of safety and must have knowledge of the specific dangerous condition, not just general awareness of potential issues. By distinguishing between inherent danger and deterioration, the court requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that the actual unsafe condition existed for a sufficient period to impute constructive knowledge. This ruling makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to succeed in premises liability claims based solely on general maintenance issues or subsequent safety improvements without direct evidence of the owner's knowledge of the specific danger.
