Case #1 Premises Liability
- Wal-Mart v. Gonzales, 968 S.W.2d 934, 41 Tex. Sup. J. 811(1998)
Texas Court
May 8, 1998, Delivered
- Appellant: Walmart Stores Appellee: Flora L. Gonzalez
Key Facts:
The case relied on solid circumstantial evidence to back up the facts and build a case against Walmart retailers. Moreover, the findings revealed negligence on Walmart’s part. The evidence exposed some macaroni salad found on the floor by shoppers. The court of appeal believed that the case relied heavily on the adequate proof that revealed macaroni salad was on Walmart ground for a long period. Hence, collaborating the evidence with the incident would make the case have merit (Lang, & Campbell, 2017). While carrying out her weekly shopping with her child, Gonzalez, fell and wounded her backbone. The cause of her slip was macaroni salad found near cafeteria section. She also sustained wounds on her knees and left shoulder
Duty:
Walmart retailers had a duty to warn their customers of any impending danger but the failed to put up a notice leading to the injury of one of their loyal customers (Lang, & Campbell, 2017).
Breach of Duty:
Walmart had a responsibility to clean their floors yet, they did not which led to a slip of one of their clients (Lang, & Campbell, 2017).
Causation:
Gonzalez’s child attested macaroni had dirt and footprints, signifying it stayed on the floor for a long time (Lang, & Campbell, 2017).
Damages:
Gonzalez received $ 100,000 for her damages. However, Walmart appealed the case and the court accepted. In the end, Gonzalez’s damages after the appeal were $96,700 and the court permitted certiorari vision (Lang, & Campbell, 2017).
Case #2 premises liability
Occidental chemical company (Petitioner) v Jason Jenkins (Respondent).
Key facts
On April 2006, Jason Jenkins injured during utilization of an acid-addition equipment at Texas chemical firm (The Supreme Court of Texas, 2017). Consequently, Jenkins requested the case was a premise liability rather than a negligence case. However, Jenkin failed to give enough findings that would prove a premise liability case and hence did not submit the premise liability to the jury. Jenkins relied on the evidence of two people, who revealed the firm did not have safety audit of their equipment hence increasing probability of accidents.
Duty
Occidental had a duty to assess the safety levels of its equipment and inform tis workers of any danger that they might face while interacting with the machineries (The Supreme Court of Texas, 2017).
Breach of duty
The company failed to provide supervision to any one not well acquainted with the machinery hence negligence on their part (The Supreme Court of Texas, 2017).
Causation
Jenkins sustained injuries after handling acid systems which under poor state. Occidental refuted Jenkin’s claims (The Supreme Court of Texas, 2017).
Damages
Occidental appealed to two decrees of repose one against the administrators governing equipment and the other against the design of the system. On the other hand, the court decided to break the law while Jenkins was within their vicinity and the statutes of appeal did not inform on the court’s decisions (The Supreme Court of Texas, 2017)..
Case 3 United Scaffolding, Inc. v. James Levine
In this case, the court reversed a million dollar ruling passed for complainant and ensured that no one received money in offender’s favor. The court concluded that premises of liability were incorrectly applied to the jury to make the case have a negligence concept. Thus, the court was not under any duress to the incorrect application by the plaintiff (The Supreme Court of Texas ,2017) .In 2005, December James Levine tasked with a duty to repair and connection of blanks into a exchanger, Levine slip and fell on a piece of wood and fell, injuring his neck.
Reference
The Supreme Court of Texas (2017). United Scaffolding, Inc., Petitioner,V.James Levine, Respondent http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1438062/150921.pdf
Lang, H. D. S., & Campbell, R. A. (2017). Survey of Recent Mandamus Decisions of the Texas Supreme Court. SMU Annual Texas Survey, 3(1), 265.
