Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates
13 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 227, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 253, 451 S.W.2d 752 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to an invitee to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the owner created or maintained a condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm that the owner knew or should have known about, and mere surmise or suspicion is insufficient to establish such a risk.
Facts:
- Margaret Seideneck visited the Cal Bayreuther Associates showroom at the Trade Mart in Dallas as a business invitee to purchase merchandise for her gift shop.
- In a corner of the showroom, a small Christmas tree and other items were displayed on a table that rested upon a wool, pile-type rug.
- The rug was approximately 36 inches in diameter and featured a loose-weave, mesh-type fringe with tassels and loops approximately one inch in diameter.
- Most of the rug was positioned under the table, but a portion of it extended out from under the table by six inches to a foot.
- As Mrs. Seideneck stepped backward from the table to observe the Christmas tree, her heel caught in the rug, causing her to fall backward and break her right wrist.
- There was nothing specific to call Mrs. Seideneck's attention to the rug's presence, and the rest of the floor nearby was smooth asphalt tile.
- There was no evidence presented that the rug was defective, that its construction was unusual, or that anyone had previously tripped on it.
- Mrs. Seideneck sought $40,000 in damages, alleging the defendants' failure to make their showroom reasonably safe.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Seideneck and Henry Seideneck sued Cal Bayreuther Associates and its principals in the trial court (court of first instance) to recover damages for personal injuries.
- When the plaintiffs rested their case, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for an instructed verdict.
- The trial court rendered judgment that the Seidenecks take nothing.
- The Seidenecks, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision, with Cal Bayreuther Associates as 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 landowner breach their duty of ordinary care to a business invitee by having a common rug with a loose-weave, looped fringe, partially extending from under a display table, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm, when there is no evidence of defectiveness, prior falls, or unusual construction of the rug?
Opinions:
Majority - Calvert, Chief Justice
No, a landowner does not breach their duty of ordinary care under these circumstances because the evidence presented does not sufficiently establish that the rug, even with its looped fringe and placement, created an unreasonable risk of harm that the defendants should have foreseen, amounting to nothing more than a mere surmise or suspicion. The basic duty of a landowner to invitees is to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. To establish a claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) the owner maintained a condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) the injury resulted from contact with that condition; and (3) the owner knew or should have known of the condition's existence and appreciated its dangers. An 'unreasonable risk of harm' is defined as a condition where there is a sufficient probability of a harmful event that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen it. While there was some evidence that Mrs. Seideneck tripped on the rug, there was no evidence that the rug's construction or placement created an unreasonable risk of harm. The record lacked evidence of previous falls, defects in the rug, or that this type of rug or its specific placement was unusual or inherently dangerous. The court found that the evidence of danger was so weak as to create only a 'mere surmise or suspicion' of its existence, which, under the rule from Joske v. Irvine, is legally 'no evidence' sufficient to support a verdict or judgment. Therefore, an instructed verdict for the defendants was proper.
Dissenting - Smith, Justice
Yes, a landowner does breach their duty under these circumstances, and a jury should have been allowed to determine if placing a rug with 1-inch woven loops partially under a display table created a foreseeable danger for a business invitee who might trip on it while viewing merchandise. Justice Smith respectfully dissents, arguing that the trial court and appellate courts denied the plaintiffs a trial by jury. He accepts the general principles of landowner duty but contends that a jury could reasonably find that the defendants knew of the condition they deliberately created (the rug with woven holes) and that a reasonably prudent person should have foreseen that its placement under a display table could lead to an accident like Mrs. Seideneck's. The dissent emphasizes that the defendants were in a position to know the rug's condition, whereas the invitee was not, and Mrs. Seideneck had a right to assume the premises were safe without needing to inspect for such hazards. The issue of whether specific acts constitute negligence is fundamentally a jury question. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as required when reviewing an instructed verdict, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude negligence on the part of the defendants.
Analysis:
This case establishes a high bar for proving 'unreasonable risk of harm' in premises liability claims, particularly in 'slip and fall' or 'trip and fall' scenarios involving common, non-defective items. It reinforces the 'no evidence' rule, requiring more than mere suspicion or possibility to send a case to a jury. The ruling indicates that absent evidence of prior incidents, inherent defectiveness, or unusual danger, a landowner will generally not be held liable for injuries caused by ordinary fixtures or floor coverings, shifting the burden significantly onto the plaintiff to demonstrate actual foreseeability of harm. This could limit the scope of premises liability for conditions that are not patently hazardous or have not previously caused injury.
