Terry Williams sued the State of Texas alleging that he was injured when the truck he was driving ran over a sign lying face-down in the roadway, causing the right front tire to blow out and Williams to lose control. The district court rendered judgment on a verdict favoring Williams, and the court of appeals affirmed. 932 S.W.2d 546.

The district court instructed the jury as follows:

With respect to the condition of the roadway, the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation was negligent if:

a. The obstruction caused an unreasonable risk of harm, and

b. The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation knew, or should have known, of the obstruction, and

c. The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation failed to adequately warn Terry Williams of the condition or to make the condition reasonably safe, and

d. Terry Williams did not have knowledge of the condition.

The State complains that paragraph (c) allowed the jury to find negligence if the State either failed to warn Williams or failed to make the condition reasonably safe. That is, the jury could have found the State negligent for failing to adequately warn Williams of a condition it had made reasonably safe, or of failing to make reasonably safe a condition of which it adequately warned Williams. The State argues that it had a duty to warn or make safe, but not both. In other words, the State argues that it was not negligent unless it neither adequately warned Williams nor made the condition reasonably safe. Stated differently still, the State argues that it was not negligent unless it both failed to adequately warn Williams and failed to make the condition reasonably safe.

We agree with the State. State Department of Highways Public Transportation v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 237 (Tex. 1992); see Smith v. State, 716 S.W.2d 177, 179 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The court of appeals also agreed with the State on the law, but concluded that the district court's instruction was correct. 932 S.W.2d at 551. The court of appeals does not appear to have appreciated the significance of the disjunctive in the instruction.

The district court's instruction tracks the Texas Pattern Jury Charges recommendation in premises liability cases when plaintiff is a licensee. 3 STATE BAR OF TEXAS, TEXAS PATTERN JURY CHARGES PJC 66.05 (1994). In State Department of Highways Public Transportation v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 237 (Tex. 1992), we held that to establish the liability of a premises owner, a plaintiff must prove that "the owner failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the [licensee or invitee] from danger". The owner can provide the required protection by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe. This statement of the duty eliminates the confusion caused by PJC 66.05. Thus, the proper instruction in a premises liability case when the plaintiff is a licensee is:

With respect to the condition of the premises, defendant was negligent if —

a. the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm;

b. defendant had actual knowledge of the danger;

c. plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the danger; and

d. defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to protect plaintiff from danger, by both failing to adequately warn plaintiff of the condition and failing to make that condition reasonably safe.

If plaintiff is an invitee, paragraph (b) should state, "defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the danger", and (c) should be omitted.

The district court's instruction to the jury was error, but it was not harmful error. The State vigorously contested whether there was a sign in the road at all, but it did not dispute that if there was, it did nothing to warn Williams or make the condition reasonably safe. This element of liability was simply not in dispute. Therefore, error in instructing the jury could not have caused rendition of an improper judgment necessary for reversal. TEX. R. APP. P. 81.

The State also argues that the sign was not a special defect, and that the district court erred in giving the jury a so-called "dynamite charge". See Stevens v. Travelers Ins. Co., 563 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. 1978); Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-502, 17 S.Ct. 154, 157, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). Both these arguments lack merit for the reasons expressed by the court of appeals.

Accordingly, the State's application for writ of error is denied. To the extent the court of appeals' opinion conflicts with this opinion, it is disapproved.

Summaries of

State v. Williams

Supreme Court of Texas

Mar 13, 1997

940 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. 1997)

holding that landowner "had a duty to warn or make safe, but not both."

Summary of this case from Smith v. Braum's, Inc.

holding that landowner “had a duty to warn or make safe, but not both”

Summary of this case from Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.

holding that landowner "had a duty to warn or make safe, but not both"

Summary of this case from Padron v. Catholic Diocese of Austin

holding that landowner "had a duty to warn or make safe, but not both"

Summary of this case from Wallace v. Arcelormittal Vinton, Inc.

holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning

Summary of this case from Golden Corral Corp. v. Trigg

holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by “either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe”

Summary of this case from Golden Corral Corp. v. Trigg

deferring to the court of appeals' finding that a street sign lying in middle of a highway was a special defect

Summary of this case from Texas Dept. of Transp. v. York

deferring to the court of appeals's finding that a street sign lying in middle of a highway was a special defect

Summary of this case from Texas Dept. of Transportation v. York

stating fourth element of premises liability claim is "defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to protect plaintiff from danger, by both failing to adequately warn plaintiff of the condition and failing to make that condition reasonably safe"

Summary of this case from City of Hous. v. Crawford

listing elements for licensee premises liability claim

Summary of this case from Chamie v. Mem'l Hermann Health Sys.

setting forth the duty owed to a licensee

Summary of this case from Lucker v. Tex. Dep't of Transp.

stating that lack of actual knowledge of danger is one essential element

Summary of this case from Lucker v. Tex. Dep't of Transp.

noting elements of premises-liability claim where plaintiff is licensee

Summary of this case from Bufler v. Apeck Constr., LLC

specifying the elements for a premises liability claim asserted by a licensee

Summary of this case from Stewart v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice

listing elements of a licensee's premises liability claim

Summary of this case from DALLAS-FT. Intl. v. Linda Ban.

In Williams, the Texas Supreme Court provides the proper wording for a negligence instruction in a premises liability case in which the plaintiff is an invitee.

Summary of this case from ADLONG v. SAN JACINTO METH HOSP

In State v. Williams, 940 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex. 1996), in setting out the language to be used to instruct a jury on how to apply this legal duty, the Court held that the proper jury instruction in a premises liability case when a plaintiff is an invitee or licensee includes the language "defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to protect plaintiff from danger, by both failing to adequately warn the plaintiff of the condition and failing to make the condition reasonably safe."

Summary of this case from Knorpp v. Hale

modifying PJC 66.5

Summary of this case from Palais Royal v. Gunnels

setting out the proper jury instructions for premises liability actions when the plaintiff is a licensee or invitee

Summary of this case from Holder v. Mellon Mortg

State v. Williams

Summary

Opinion

State v. Williams

State v. Williams

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

State v. Williams

Summary

Opinion

State v. Williams

State v. Williams

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations