Randy Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P.
465 S.W. 3d 193 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer generally does not have a duty to warn or protect its employees from unreasonably dangerous premises conditions that are open and obvious or known to the employee. This general rule is subject to limited exceptions for foreseeable third-party criminal activity and necessary use of the premises where an employee cannot take adequate precautions.
Facts:
- Randy Austin was employed by Kroger Texas L.P. as a "floor clean-up person."
- Following a power-washing of condenser units, an oily liquid leaked through ventilation ducts and created large spills on the floors of two restrooms in the store.
- Austin's supervisor instructed him to clean the spills.
- Kroger's recommended cleaning system, "Spill Magic," which was designed to reduce slip-and-fall risks, was not available at the store.
- Austin proceeded to clean the spill with a mop, fully aware of the slippery and dangerous condition.
- He placed "wet floor" signs and took cautious "baby steps" while mopping.
- After cleaning part of the second restroom, Austin slipped in the remaining liquid, fell, and sustained severe injuries, including a fractured femur and dislocated hip.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Austin sued his employer, Kroger Texas L.P., in a Texas state court for premises liability and negligence.
- Kroger removed the case to the United States District Court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Kroger on all claims.
- Austin, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment on Austin's negligent activity and gross negligence claims but reversed and remanded his necessary-instrumentalities claim.
- Finding Texas law on premises liability for nonsubscribing employers to be unclear, the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 nonsubscribing employer have a duty under Texas law to protect an employee from injury caused by a premises defect of which the employee was fully aware and which his job duties required him to remedy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boyd
No, a nonsubscribing employer generally does not have a duty to protect an employee from an open and obvious premises defect that the employee's job requires them to remedy. An employer's premises-liability duty to an employee is the same as a landowner's duty to an invitee, which is to exercise reasonable care by either making the premises safe or warning of concealed dangers. There is generally no duty to warn of or eliminate dangers that are already known to the employee or are open and obvious, as the law presumes the employee will take reasonable measures to protect themselves. The court identified two narrow exceptions where a duty might still exist despite the invitee's awareness: the 'criminal-activity exception,' for foreseeable crimes by third parties, and the 'necessary-use exception,' where an invitee must use the dangerous premises and is unable to adequately reduce the risk. Austin's case fits neither exception, as remedying such spills was the very nature of his job. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s waiver of common law defenses for nonsubscribing employers does not create a legal duty where one does not otherwise exist; the employee must still prove the existence of a duty as a threshold element of their claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and reinforces the scope of a nonsubscribing employer's premises liability duty in Texas. By harmonizing conflicting precedents, the court establishes a strong general rule that an employee's knowledge of an open and obvious hazard negates the employer's duty to protect against it, cabining contrary holdings into two narrow, specific exceptions. This ruling strengthens the position of nonsubscribing employers by confirming that the statutory waiver of defenses under the TWCA does not relieve the plaintiff-employee of their prima facie burden to prove the existence of a duty. The decision makes it more difficult for employees to recover for injuries sustained from known risks encountered in the ordinary course of their employment.
Unlock the full brief for Randy Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P.