Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Connie Alger went to Brinson Ford Inc. to pick up friends who were having work done on their car. Alger entered the dealership through a side entrance but exited through the front door where a pedestrian ramp leads to the parking lot. Although there were handrails along most of the ramp as it sloped down to ground level, a small portion of the ramp extended beyond the handrails to the sidewalk. The highest point of this unrailed section was four inches above the sidewalk, and it was marked by yellow paint along the ramp’s edges and around the parking space next to the ramp. The ramp is the dealership’s main entrance, and Brinson Ford had no record that anyone had ever fallen from it in the nearly 10 years between the business’ opening and Alger’s fall. Alger testified that when she reached the point where the handrails ended, she thought the ramp had ended too. When she turned to walk toward her car, Alger stepped off the unrailed portion of the ramp and fell. Alger sued Brinson Ford alleging that: the ramp’s configuration was a premises condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm; Brinson Ford knew or should have known of the danger; and Brinson Ford failed to exercise ordinary care to protect her from it. The dealership filed a motion for summary judgment under sections (c) and (i) of Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion asserted a number of grounds, including that no evidence supported the finding of a premises condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Alternatively, Brinson Ford contended that the evidence established as a matter of law that the condition of the premises did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. In response to the dealership’s motion, Alger submitted the affidavit of its safety engineering expert Jack T. Madeley. Madeley’s affidavit identified the safety requirements of the Texas Accessibility Standards established by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and the Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces and acknowledged that the ramp met both sets of requirements. But Madeley opined that: “[t]he ramp in question is deceiving in appearance. The upper level of the ramp has railing down the sides. The lower part does not. This can give a visual cue indicating the ramp does not extend.” Madeley’s affidavit further concludes that the ramp was “unreasonably dangerous.” The trial court granted summary judgment in the premises owner’s favor without specifying the ground. A divided 10th Court of Appeals reversed, holding that fact issues existed as to the premises owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and whether the premises owner failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The plaintiff in a premises liability case, the court stated, must establish that the premises owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises that presented an unreasonable risk of harm and that the condition proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The duty a premises owner owes to its invitees, the court stated, is not that of an insurer. That is to say, a condition is not unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not foolproof. A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it presents an unreasonable risk of harm. The court held that as a matter of law, the ramp at issue in this case did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The area of the ramp without handrails met applicable safety standards and was further outlined in yellow stripping that the dealership added, which is a common method used to indicate a change in elevation. The highest point of the downward-sloping unrailed portion of the ramp was four inches, less than the height of an average step. No other customer visiting the property over a 10-year period had ever been injured by the ramp, nor had the dealership received complaints about the ramp’s safety. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the dealership’s favor, and the 10th Court erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.