Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Jaquez
25 S.W.3d 336, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 4918, 2000 WL 1028481 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability claim, an owner breaches its duty to a business invitee if it had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm, failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate that risk, and this failure proximately caused the invitee's injuries. The determination of an 'unreasonable risk of harm' is a fact-intensive inquiry well-suited for a jury and does not require a specific, technical definition in jury instructions.
Facts:
- In April 1996, Delia Jaquez visited one of Reliable Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Dreamers' (Dreamers) stores in Austin with her husband.
- The store had two sections of different elevations, with a five-inch high step and a six-foot-wide ramp connecting the lower and upper levels.
- Dreamers had previously rearranged the store, moving a sales counter that was flush with the step and, in doing so, exposed the step and placed a merchandise display one to two feet from it, creating a visual distraction.
- The exposed perimeter of the step was outlined with red tape.
- Jaquez walked up the ramp, browsed merchandise on the display, and then, upon turning to leave, failed to notice the step.
- Jaquez fell to the floor, twisting and fracturing her ankle.
- Justin Bertelson, a former Dreamers store manager, had observed between twelve and fifteen other customers stumble or react with surprise after failing to see the same step prior to Jaquez's fall.
- The red tape around the step's perimeter was often scuffed and worn, suggesting frequent contact by customers.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 1998, Delia Jaquez filed suit against Reliable Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Dreamers in state trial court, alleging premises liability.
- Dreamers responded with a general denial and pleaded an affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
- The trial court submitted the case to a jury, which found Jaquez forty percent negligent and Dreamers sixty percent negligent for the fall, and found $168,958.74 to be reasonable compensation for Jaquez's injuries.
- The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, ordering Dreamers to pay Jaquez damages in the amount of $123,576.41, after taking into account her comparative negligence.
- Dreamers filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial in the trial court.
- The trial court denied both of Dreamers' motions.
- Dreamers appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
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 evidence that a store's exposed step, coupled with a nearby merchandise display, prior customer stumbles, and the availability of reasonable safety precautions, legally and factually suffice to support a jury's finding that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, that the store had knowledge of it, and that its failure to act was a proximate cause of a business invitee's injury, and did the trial court err in its jury charge or evidentiary rulings?
Opinions:
Majority - Mack Kidd
Yes, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings that the step and display presented an unreasonable risk of harm, Dreamers had knowledge of this risk, and its failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate cause of Jaquez's injuries. The court found that the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm, citing testimony from a former store manager, Justin Bertelson, that Dreamers' own rearrangement of the store exposed the step and placed a distracting display nearby, and that 12-15 other customers had previously stumbled there. Expert witness William Senkowski testified that customers from the elevated level would not see the step without looking directly down, and that eye-level warnings or physical barriers were absent, suggesting several reasonable precautions. The Court affirmed that reasonableness determinations are fact-intensive inquiries well-suited for a jury, emphasizing there is no definitive objective test for an 'unreasonable risk of harm' (citing Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther & Assoc.). Dreamers had actual knowledge of the hazard because it was created by their own affirmative actions in moving the counter and placing the display, and they demonstrated this awareness by attempting to reduce the risk with a ramp and tape. Furthermore, Bertelson's observations of numerous prior stumbles directly put Dreamers on notice. The Court concluded that Dreamers’ failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate cause of Jaquez’s injuries, finding both cause in fact and foreseeability. Jaquez's injuries were a natural and probable result of Dreamers' inaction, and the testimony indicated that additional precautions would likely have prevented the fall. It is foreseeable that an inadequately marked, unguarded, and obscured step could cause falls, especially given the history of other customers stumbling (citing Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas). Regarding procedural challenges, the trial court did not err in refusing to define 'unreasonable risk of harm' in the jury charge. The term is not legal or technical and the pattern jury charge does not include such a definition (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Berry). The admission of Senkowski's expert testimony, stating the condition was a 'trip-and-fall hazard,' was not error because he merely testified to the physical characteristics of a hazard based on his qualifications, not legal conclusions regarding the standard of care or unreasonable risk of harm, which remained the jury's province. Questions from Jaquez’s counsel about Dreamers' ability to afford safety precautions were relevant to the cost-benefit analysis in premises liability cases, assessing the reasonableness of Dreamers' actions, and did not improperly refer to relative wealth. Finally, Dreamers waived its complaint about the lack of an instruction on a discount rate for future damages by not requesting it, and the jury instruction to calculate 'what sum of money, if paid now in cash,' would compensate Jaquez implicitly required discounting future damages to present value. Prejudgment interest is recoverable on future damages.
Analysis:
This case reinforces that premises liability claims are highly fact-dependent, particularly concerning the determination of what constitutes an 'unreasonable risk of harm' and the property owner's knowledge of such a risk. It clarifies that prior incidents, even mere stumbles without severe injury, can serve as compelling evidence of a property owner's notice of a hazard. The ruling also provides guidance on jury instructions, holding that common terms need not be explicitly defined if the general charge is consistent with pattern instructions, and on the permissible scope of expert testimony in premises liability cases, distinguishing between technical hazardous conditions and ultimate legal conclusions. This helps future plaintiffs establish notice and proximate cause while providing clarity on trial procedure.
