Warren v. Medley
521 S.W.2d 137, 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 2641 (1975)
Rule of Law:
In Texas, a property owner owes a social guest (licensee) only the duty to refrain from injuring them through willful, wanton, or gross negligence, rather than a duty of ordinary reasonable care.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs and the defendant dined out and visited a nightclub featuring 'go-go' dancers before returning to the defendant's home.
- At the defendant's home, the group joined another couple, Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds, where the conversation turned to the dancers' performance.
- Reynolds asked Mrs. Warren (plaintiff) to demonstrate the dance, but she refused.
- Reynolds physically grabbed Mrs. Warren and placed her on top of a glass-topped table used for a poker game.
- The table consisted of a wrought iron frame with glass resting inside without center support; the defendant knew it could not support an adult's weight.
- Before Mrs. Warren could dance or get down, the glass top shattered.
- Mrs. Warren fell through the broken glass and sustained injuries to her leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the defendant and Reynolds in the trial court.
- Plaintiffs settled their suit against Reynolds.
- The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's motion and entered a 'take nothing' judgment against the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil 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 a host owe a social guest a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury caused by active negligence, or is the host's duty limited to refraining from willful, wanton, or gross negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Keith
No, a host does not owe a social guest a duty of ordinary reasonable care regarding active negligence, but rather is only liable for willful, wanton, or gross negligence. The court reasoned that under established Texas law, social guests are classified as licensees. Citing State v. Tennison, the court reaffirmed that a licensor's only duty to a licensee is not to injure them by willful, wanton, or gross negligence. The court explicitly rejected the plaintiffs' argument to adopt a 'reasonable care' standard or revive the distinction between 'active' and 'passive' negligence. Applying this standard to the facts, the court found that the defendant did not act willfully or wantonly. The testimony showed the defendant was surprised by Reynolds' actions and could not have prevented the accident. Therefore, the defendant negated the elements of gross negligence and proximate cause as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional common law distinction between invitees and licensees in premises liability. By strictly adhering to the 'willful, wanton, or gross negligence' standard for social guests, the court declined to modernize the law to a general 'reasonable care' standard that many other jurisdictions were adopting at the time. The decision highlights the high bar plaintiffs must clear to recover damages from social hosts in Texas; mere negligence or the dangerous condition of the property (like a fragile table) is insufficient for liability unless the host acts with conscious indifference to the guest's welfare.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Warren v. Medley (1975)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"