URL-provided case (name will be extracted)
Not specified in text (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Texas premises-liability law, a person performing volunteer work for a third-party vendor on a landowner's property is a licensee, not an invitee, if the landowner receives only a flat rental fee from the vendor and no direct economic benefit from the volunteer's labor.
Facts:
- San Lorenzo Church (the Church), a small Catholic parish in Clint, Texas, held an annual three-day festival, Fiesta de San Lorenzo, on its grounds.
- The Church profited from the festival by receiving a percentage of carnival proceeds, selling drinks and ice, operating its own booths, and renting space to approximately 60 vendors.
- The El Paso 4-H Leaders Association (4-H) rented a booth from the Church for $650 to sell funnel cakes, gorditas, and snow cones.
- 4-H provided its own equipment for the booth, including a snow cone machine, a funnel-cake fryer, a steam table, and a propane tank.
- The Church received no part of 4-H’s sales or proceeds from the items sold by the volunteers.
- On the third day of the festival, a fire broke out in the 4-H booth, injuring five volunteers (four teenagers and one adult) who were working inside.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of the four teenage volunteers (the Families) sued the Church and Heritage Operating, L.P. (which allegedly filled 4-H’s propane tank) in a state trial court for premises liability.
- The jury found that the 4-H volunteers were licensees on the Church property, failed to find that either the Church or Heritage negligently caused the injuries, and awarded the Families zero damages.
- The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment on the jury's verdict.
- The Families appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to Heritage but reversed as to the Church, holding that the volunteers were the Church’s invitees as a matter of law and that the verdict for the Church was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, remanding the Families’ claims against the Church for a new trial.
- Both the Church (as petitioner) and the Families (as respondents/cross-petitioners) petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are volunteers working for a third-party vendor at a festival invitees or licensees of the landowner when the landowner receives a flat rental fee from the vendor but no share of the vendor's sales, and thus no direct economic benefit from the volunteers' labor?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hecht
No, volunteers working for a third-party vendor at a festival are licensees, not invitees, of the landowner when the landowner receives no direct economic benefit from the volunteers' labor. The Court affirmed that invitee status requires a "mutual benefit," which is defined as a shared business or economic interest between the visitor and the property owner. Citing Cowart v. Meeks and Olivier v. Snowden, the Court emphasized that the visitor's presence must be for a purpose that offers "at least potential pecuniary profit" to the owner. Here, the Church received only a flat rental fee from 4-H and no portion of the sales generated by the volunteers' labor. Therefore, the volunteers' presence in the 4-H booth benefitted 4-H, not the Church, and was considered "on business with others than the owner of the premises." The Court noted that a visitor's status is determined at the time and place of injury, and the volunteers were injured inside the 4-H booth, an area off-limits to general festival-goers. As licensees, the Church's duty was the lesser duty to "use ordinary care either to warn [them] of, or to make reasonably safe, a dangerous condition of which [it was] aware and the [volunteers were] not." The jury found no breach of this duty, and the Families failed to conclusively establish that the Church had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court also found no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on other issues, including attorney summation, evidentiary matters, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Heritage.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the "mutual economic benefit" test for determining invitee status in Texas premises-liability law, particularly in the context of volunteers working for third parties. It reinforces that a landowner's higher duty of care to invitees is strictly tied to a direct economic benefit or potential pecuniary profit derived from the visitor's presence. The ruling limits premises-liability exposure for landowners in situations involving independent contractors or vendors, ensuring that the higher duty is not automatically extended to those whose labor primarily benefits a third party, absent a direct financial tie to the landowner. This could impact future cases involving volunteers, subcontractors, or employees of rented-space tenants, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a clearer economic nexus with the landowner to establish invitee status.
