Opinion
No. 06-05-00014-CV
Submitted: July 5, 2005.
Decided: September 23, 2005.
On Appeal from the 215th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-18920.
Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dorothy De Los Santos appeals from a summary judgment rendered against her in her slip and fall case against her employer. Summary judgment was sought both under traditional and no-evidence theories. The trial court specifically granted summary judgment under the no-evidence theory.
We commend the trial court for the effort spent in preparing a summary judgment that explained its ruling and provided specific rulings. Its actions simplified and focused our review to a degree not possible in situations where courts simply use the generic "grant or deny" language.
A no-evidence summary judgment is essentially a pretrial directed verdict. We therefore apply the same legal sufficiency standard in reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment as we apply in reviewing a directed verdict. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002). We must determine whether the nonmovant produced any evidence of probative force to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented. Id.; Woodruff v. Wright, 51 S.W.3d 727 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). We consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the no-evidence summary judgment was rendered, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). A no-evidence summary judgment is improperly granted if the nonmovant presents more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003); Jackson v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 68, 70-71 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.). More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence "rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions." Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 711.
De Los Santos alleged she was injured when she slipped on a bottle of hand sanitizer that a co-employee accidentally dropped on the floor. She alleged injuries consisting of a broken kneecap and resultant medical bills, and concurrent pain and anguish. Although De Los Santos' petition raises broad allegations of negligence that are not reflective of the facts as alleged, her argument as focused by the motions for summary judgment — and as addressed on appeal — is that Healthmark is liable under theories of premises liability.
This is a nonsubscriber lawsuit: Healthmark does not carry workers' compensation insurance.
Healthmark filed a no-evidence motion, stating there was no evidence that: Healthmark had actual or constructive knowledge of any condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm; Healthmark failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the floor; or that De Los Santos' injuries resulted from Healthmark's failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of harm (foreign substance on the floor).
For clarity's sake, we emphasize that the substance was the bottle itself . . . not its contents.
Employees of an owner or occupier of premises are considered invitees of the employer. Hernandez v. Heldenfels, 374 S.W.2d 196, 197 (Tex. 1963); Allen v. Connolly, 158 S.W.3d 61, 66 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
Although premises liability and employers liability are distinct fields of law, the Texas Supreme Court has noted that "the nature of the duty of the landowner to use reasonable care to make his premises reasonably safe for the use of his invitees may, in all material respects, be identical with the nature of the duty of the master to use reasonable care to provide his servant with a reasonably safe place to work. . . ." Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Robinson, 154 Tex. 336, 280 S.W.2d 238, 240 (1955) (observing that a landowner's negligence duty toward its invitees may be the same as an employer's negligence duty to provide a safe place to work, but holding that a line of no-duty premises liability cases should not be extended to the employers liability context because the Texas Supreme Court believed that such an extension would be contrary to the Texas Legislature's intent, as expressed in the Workers' Compensation Act, to take away affirmative defenses from nonsubscribing employers).
To succeed in a premises liability suit, an invitee plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises, (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate or reduce the risk of that harm, and (4) that the defendant's failure to use such care proximately caused the invitee's injury. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1998); Pierce v. Holiday, 155 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.).
The Summary Judgment Evidence
Healthmark relies on its contention that there was no evidence it had actual knowledge of the condition and that constructive knowledge cannot be inferred from this summary judgment evidence. The judgment, however, also states there is no evidence on the other elements that the plaintiff is required to establish.
We are cognizant of the fact that this lawsuit is by an employee against an employer that is a workers' compensation nonsubscriber. As a result, common-law defenses are unavailable to Healthmark. See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 406.033 (Vernon 1996). Thus, even if artfully rephrased by the employer, it cannot defend on the basis that the employee was also negligent, that the employee assumed the risk, or that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow employee. Id. Is there any evidence that Healthmark had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition?
The alleged condition is the presence of a bottle of hand sanitizer on the floor, which was dropped there by employee Elizabeth Sparkman Okoroji. In her deposition, portions of which are attached to De Los Santos' response, Okoroji stated that the Director of Nursing, Liz Napoli, had showed her the sanitizer bottle and asked if it belonged to her. Okoroji stated that she checked her pocket and found her bottle was missing and that it could have belonged to her. Trisha Salinas-Longoria testified that her understanding, based on where the bottle was found and the statements of Napoli, was that De Los Santos fell on the bottle of hand sanitizer. Further, the incident report prepared by Napoli states that De Los Santos reported she slipped on a bottle on the floor and indicates that the bottle belonged to Okoroji.
This is some evidence of how the bottle got on the floor. That is not, however, the question. The fact that an employee was responsible for the bottle being on the floor is not enough, standing alone, to show that the employer (or its agents) had actual or constructive knowledge that the bottle was there. The Texas Supreme Court has held that knowledge may be inferred by a fact-finder because of the length of time that a situation existed, and also that circumstantial evidence of actual knowledge exists when store employees have been working on the device that caused the injury. Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 266 (Tex. 1992) (explaining Coffee v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 536 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. 1976)). However, the Court also held that, even when the owner/occupier created the condition, a jury still must find that the owner/occupier knew or should have known of the condition, and that making the inference as a matter of law is improper unless knowledge is uncontroverted. Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 266; see Coffee, 536 S.W.2d at 540-41.
There is evidence that a bottle was dropped on the floor — accidentally — by an employee. But, is there any evidence that could be taken to show that the owner/occupier either knew, or should have known, the bottle was on the floor? The rationale used to justify an inference of knowledge by an employer, as described in Keetch, requires a finding that an owner of the premises knew or should have known of the condition. Several different sets of facts may be used to show the existence of knowledge. Prior, similar incidents and a high risk of harm can support the inference. See Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983). The length of time that a condition has existed can support the inference, as can knowledge that store employees were working on the display which caused the injury. See Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 266; Coffee, 536 S.W.2d 539.
There is no evidence to show how long the bottle had been on the floor — but there is a strong implication that it had only been there a short period of time, because the floor was freshly buffed. The evidence neither shows that the bottle was placed there intentionally by an employee, nor was it left as a part of an uncompleted job, and there is no evidence that it was a known but ignored condition. Further, the only evidence is that Okoroji was entirely unaware that she had dropped it (assuming the bottle was hers) until she was asked whether her bottle was in her pocket. Even if the employee's knowledge of the event is imputed to the employer, the employer would be unaware of the dropped bottle based on that knowledge alone. Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be used to establish any material fact. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004).
Even in the context of a no-evidence summary judgment review, the evidence provides nothing more than the fact that the bottle was on the floor, and the likelihood that it was unknowingly dropped by an employee. In the absence of any evidence that the bottle had been there long enough to create an inference of knowledge or some other reason that some person should have realized it was there (even De Los Santos did not see the bottle until after she fell), we find no evidence to suggest that the owner/occupier had or should have had knowledge of the condition. Because we find no evidence to support an inference of knowledge, we conclude that the summary judgment was proper.
We affirm the judgment.