A week after the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Energen Resources Corp. v. Wallace, the Court addressed another Chapter 95 case. This case involved a lineman who was severely injured after working on power lines owned by Sand Ridge.
The lineman argued that Sand Ridge was liable under Chapter 95 because they exercised control over the manner in which the work was performed, and they had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to adequately warn the lineman. Sand Ridge argued that they had no duty to warn because the lineman knew of the condition.
The Texas Supreme Court agreed with SandRidge. Under the common law, a landowner does not have a duty to warn “when either, objectively, ‘the danger is open and obvious’ or, subjectively, the claimant ‘had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition.”‘ While Chapter 95 does not explicitly state these common law doctrines, the Court held that they are applicable in Chapter 95 cases. Because the lineman had been working on power lines for six months before the accident and appreciated the dangers involved with his work, the Court held that such a danger was “open and obvious,” and SandRidge had no duty to warn. They further held that the necessary-use exception to the open and obvious doctrine did not apply.
Representations and Warranties: Negotiating a Guarantee That Works for You written by Kaysha Spoon TheWhat’s in Your Indemnity Provision?
What’s in Your Indemnity Provision? written by Kaysha Spoon The indemnity provision is one ofShould My MSA Indemnify Against Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct?
Should My MSA Indemnify Against Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct? written by Matt Reynolds OneTop 10 Must Haves for Your MSA
Top 10 Must Haves for Your MSA written by Matt Reynolds Master Service Agreements (“MSAs”)What Is an Indemnity?
What is an Indemnity? written by Matt Reynolds As you grow your company, you mustPore Space Ownership: Ensuring Texas’ Poorly Worded Case Law Doesn’t Leave You in the Poor House
Pore Space Ownership: Ensuring Texas’ Poorly Worded Case Law Doesn’t Leave You in the Poor