Lopez v. Ensign U.S. Southern Drilling, LLC
524 S.W.3d 836, 2017 WL 1086518, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2369 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas common law, a property owner generally has no duty to warn an independent contractor's employee of pre-existing hazards that are open, obvious, or known to the employee.
Facts:
- Freeport-McMoRan owned and operated an oil well and contracted with Ensign to provide a drilling rig for the site.
- Freeport-McMoRan also contracted with an independent contractor, Stratagraph, to provide mud logging services.
- Stratagraph employed Ryan Lopez as a mud logger, whose duties required him to collect drill cuttings.
- To collect the cuttings, Lopez had to frequently traverse a stairway on the Ensign-owned rig.
- This stairway had a gap in the handrail on one side and lacked a handrail on the other side.
- Over a period of 46 days, Lopez used the stairway hundreds of times and was fully aware of the gap in the handrail.
- On July 1, 2012, while working his night shift, Lopez's hand slipped through the gap in the handrail, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Ryan Lopez filed a lawsuit against Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC and Ensign U.S. Southern Drilling, LLC in a Texas trial court, alleging negligence and premises liability.
- Both Freeport-McMoRan and Ensign filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted the summary judgment motions for both defendants.
- Lopez, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, against Freeport-McMoRan and Ensign, the appellees.
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 property owner or occupier owe a duty to an independent contractor's employee to make safe or warn of a premises condition that is open and obvious and already known to the employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Kevin Jewell, Justice
No. A property owner has no duty to warn an independent contractor’s employee of open and obvious hazards. First, the court determined that Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 95, which imposes more onerous requirements on plaintiffs, did not apply. Chapter 95 applies only when the injury arises from a condition of the same 'improvement' the contractor is working on. The court found the mobile drilling rig (where the injury occurred) was not part of the same improvement as the well itself, as the rig was not permanently annexed and could be moved without injuring the property. Therefore, the claim was governed by common law premises liability. Under common law, a property owner's duty to an independent contractor's employee extends only to pre-existing, concealed hazards. The evidence, including Lopez’s own deposition, conclusively established that the gap in the handrail was an open and obvious condition that he was aware of, having used the stairs hundreds of times. The court also rejected the 'necessary-use' exception because evidence showed an alternative, albeit less convenient, route was available to Lopez. Because the hazard was unconcealed and its use was not necessary, neither Freeport-McMoRan nor Ensign owed a duty to Lopez.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the robust 'no-duty' rule in Texas premises liability law regarding open and obvious dangers for independent contractors. By narrowly interpreting what constitutes a 'single improvement' under Chapter 95, the court limited the statute's applicability, pushing more cases into a common law analysis that is often favorable to landowners. Furthermore, the court's strict application of the 'necessary-use' exception clarifies that the mere inconvenience of an alternate route does not render the use of a dangerous one 'necessary,' thereby making it more difficult for plaintiffs to overcome the open and obvious doctrine.
