TXI Operations, L.P. v. Perry
2009 Tex. LEXIS 32, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 388, 278 S.W.3d 763 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general speed limit sign posted near a known dangerous condition does not, as a matter of law, constitute an adequate warning that discharges a premises owner's duty to warn invitees, especially if the sign does not specifically identify the particular hazard.
Facts:
- TXI Operations, LP, owns and operates the Dolen Sand Pit and is responsible for maintaining an unpaved road connecting the pit to the highway.
- David Perry, a truck driver for Campbell Ready Mix, regularly drove back and forth on this unpaved road to load and transport materials.
- The unpaved road was rough and contained a large pothole, nine inches deep, at a cattle guard near the sand pit.
- TXI had posted a fifteen miles-per-hour speed limit sign near the cattle guard and pothole.
- Perry knew the pothole was present and was aware of the speed limit sign, having driven the road at least four times earlier that same day without injury.
- On a subsequent trip, Perry struck the pothole while driving between 10-15 mph, causing him to be thrown into the roof of his truck's cab and sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- David Perry sued TXI Operations, LP, in a trial court, alleging negligence for failing to adequately warn him of a dangerous road condition.
- A jury found both Perry and TXI negligent and equally at fault, and the trial court entered a judgment for Perry, reducing the jury's damage award by his percentage of fault.
- TXI Operations, LP, appealed the trial court's judgment to the court of appeals, arguing that posting the speed limit sign discharged its duty to warn Perry of the dangerous road condition.
- The court of appeals disagreed with TXI's argument and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
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 general speed limit sign posted near a known, dangerous premises condition, which the landowner has a duty to warn about, constitute an adequate warning as a matter of law, thereby discharging the landowner's duty to warn invitees?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Green
No, a general speed limit sign posted near a known, dangerous premises condition does not, as a matter of law, constitute an adequate warning and therefore does not discharge a landowner's duty to warn invitees. Premises owners have a duty to keep their premises safe for invitees or adequately warn them of known, unreasonable risks. TXI conceded it owed a duty to warn invitees of the pothole, which constituted a dangerous condition, and did not repair it. The Court found that a general speed limit sign, which neither informed the driver of road hazards generally nor identified the specific pothole, was not conclusive evidence of an adequate warning. The fact that Perry was driving within the posted speed limit when he was injured, coupled with evidence that the pothole presented a risk even at speeds below the limit (as shown by a test driver being injured at 10 mph), provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that the warning was inadequate. The Court emphasized that while a speed limit sign doesn't guarantee safety, the jury was entitled to determine if the warning was sufficient for the specific hazard, given TXI's choice not to repair the known danger.
Dissenting - Justice Hecht
No, the majority incorrectly determined that the speed limit sign was an inadequate warning; the 15 mph speed limit sign was adequate as a matter of law, and a specific warning should not have been required at all due to the open and obvious nature of the pothole. Justice Hecht argued that common potholes in rural dirt roads do not pose an "unreasonable risk of harm" to experienced 18-wheeler drivers, and thus no warning should be necessary, criticizing the majority's assumption of a duty to warn. He contended that a maximum speed limit sign does not imply safety at that speed under all conditions, as Texas law requires drivers to operate at a speed that is reasonable and prudent given actual hazards, even if below the posted limit. Perry knew about the pothole and had successfully navigated it multiple times on the day of the injury, and thousands of crossings had occurred without incident before. The dissent asserted that the general speed warnings were the most practical type given the constantly changing road conditions. Furthermore, Justice Hecht argued that the "open and obvious" nature of the pothole should preclude liability, aligning with the view of many other states and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which generally hold that landowners have no duty to warn of dangers that are known or obvious and can be fully appreciated and avoided by a reasonable person.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for adequate warnings in premises liability, emphasizing that general instructions like speed limit signs may not suffice for known, specific dangerous conditions. It reinforces that the adequacy of a warning is often a factual determination for a jury, preventing landowners from relying on generic warnings as a complete defense as a matter of law. This ruling could encourage premises owners to either repair known hazards or provide more specific and explicit warnings to invitees, rather than solely relying on broad safety instructions.
