29 Cited authorities

Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.
58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1154 (Tex. 2015) Cited 288 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, despite rules limiting an employer's use of defenses based upon employee conduct, an employer owes no duty to an employee who was aware of the dangers associated with their job duties
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen
15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) Cited 405 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that eventual instability and deterioration of a platform unit did not render it a dangerous condition from the inception of its use
Dow Chemical Co. v. Bright
89 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2002) Cited 247 times
Holding that Dow's failure to implement a safety rule detailing how to secure pipe was not actual control and did not implicate the narrow duty of care not to promulgate safety regulations that unreasonably increase the risk or severity of injury
Redinger v. Living Inc.
689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1985) Cited 364 times
Holding that the general contractor owed a duty of reasonable care where it instructed a plumbing subcontractor's employee to perform a specific task immediately, resulting in the employee's being injured by a tractor another subcontractor was operating in the area
General Elec. v. Moritz
257 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2008) Cited 157 times
Holding that a landowner need not warn an independent contractor's employees of known, obvious hazards
Abutahoun v. Dow Chem. Co.
58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 879 (Tex. 2015) Cited 109 times 3 Legal Analyses
Interpreting "or" as indicating separate prongs in the Tort Claims Act's phrase "condition or use," either of which may be used to demonstrate a waiver of sovereign immunity
Coastal Marine Service of Texas v. Lawrence
988 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1999) Cited 135 times
Holding that the pinch point area of crane that was not dangerous until crane was put into operation was not the sort of premises defect that was so dangerous in its own right that it gave rise to a premises owner's duty to inspect and warn
Ineos USA, LLC v. Elmgren
505 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. 2016) Cited 70 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Chapter 95 "only applies when the injury results from a condition or use of the same improvement on which the contractor (or its employee) is working when the injury occurs
Ellwood Tex. Forge Corp. v. Jones
214 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App. 2007) Cited 58 times
Holding that a general contractor's right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner, and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment, merely showed the possibility of control, not actual control
Dyall v. Simpson Pasadena Paper
152 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App. 2004) Cited 46 times
Holding plaintiff "was required to surmount the defense provided by Chapter 95 as to all of his claims that sounded in negligence"
Section 95.002 - Applicability
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 95.002 Cited 75 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that Chapter 95 applies to claims "against a property owner, contractor, or subcontractor for personal injury ... to an owner, a contractor, or a subcontractor or an employee of a contractor or subcontractor"
Section 95.001 - Definitions
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 95.001 Cited 38 times
Defining a property owner as "a person or entity that owns real property primarily used for commercial or business purposes"

Mcdonald v. Finaly Resources, Llc

29 Cited authorities

Holding that, despite rules limiting an employer's use of defenses based upon employee conduct, an employer owes no duty to an employee who was aware of the dangers associated with their job duties

Holding that eventual instability and deterioration of a platform unit did not render it a dangerous condition from the inception of its use

Holding that Dow's failure to implement a safety rule detailing how to secure pipe was not actual control and did not implicate the narrow duty of care not to promulgate safety regulations that unreasonably increase the risk or severity of injury

Holding that the general contractor owed a duty of reasonable care where it instructed a plumbing subcontractor's employee to perform a specific task immediately, resulting in the employee's being injured by a tractor another subcontractor was operating in the area

Holding that a landowner need not warn an independent contractor's employees of known, obvious hazards

Interpreting "or" as indicating separate prongs in the Tort Claims Act's phrase "condition or use," either of which may be used to demonstrate a waiver of sovereign immunity

Holding that the pinch point area of crane that was not dangerous until crane was put into operation was not the sort of premises defect that was so dangerous in its own right that it gave rise to a premises owner's duty to inspect and warn

Holding that Chapter 95 "only applies when the injury results from a condition or use of the same improvement on which the contractor (or its employee) is working when the injury occurs

Holding plaintiff "was required to surmount the defense provided by Chapter 95 as to all of his claims that sounded in negligence"

Providing that Chapter 95 applies to claims "against a property owner, contractor, or subcontractor for personal injury ... to an owner, a contractor, or a subcontractor or an employee of a contractor or subcontractor"

Defining a property owner as "a person or entity that owns real property primarily used for commercial or business purposes"