Dallas Attorneys Obtain Complete Defense Verdict Against Negligence Claims of $15M

Claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Premises Liability

The case arose out of the October 2019 tornado event in Dallas and the extensive remodel of a large Preston Hollow home. The Defendant installed the spray foam insulation in the attic. As part of its work prep, the Defendant laid plastic all over the attic, including over an attic access opening, before being called off the job by the General Contractor. The Plaintiff was installing electric wiring on the project and claimed the Defendant’s plastic prevented him from seeing the opening and caused him to fall 12 feet into the garage below. Plaintiff sustained  injuries to his ankle, femur, and shoulder. Plaintiff refused to join the General Contractor/Builder as a party. The Defendant joined the General Contractor/Builder as a party to the case, ultimately convincing the jury the sole cause of the injury to the Plaintiff was the General Contractor’s failure to properly oversee and manage the entire project.

To recover on a negligence claim, Plaintiff must prove: (1) a legal duty owed by Defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach.

To prove gross negligence under Texas law, Plaintiff must show: (1) Defendant’s conduct involved an extreme degree of risk, and (2) Defendant had actual awareness of the risk but acted with conscious indifference.

For premises liability, Plaintiff must show: (1) Defendant possessed or controlled the premises; (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk; (3) Defendant had actual knowledge of the condition; (4) Plaintiff did not; (5) Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care; and (6) this failure proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury.

No Duty Owed to the Plaintiff

The evidence conclusively established that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff; Defendant was not present at the time or location of the incident and was not engaged in any contemporaneous activity with Plaintiff for a negligence claim. As a premises liability claim requires the Defendant to own, occupy, or control the premises, and only a party with such control assumes the corresponding duty, the duty here rested with the Third-Party Defendant (General Contractor), not the Defendant.

Further, the attic condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff admitted seeing the plastic sheet prior to entering the attic and before his fall. No evidence showed Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or that its conduct involved an extreme degree of risk nor was there evidence Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of any such risk. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s gross negligence claim also fails.

Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff, did not breach any duty, and was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant did not control the premises and thus bore no responsibility as a premises possessor. The Third-Party Defendant (General Contractor/Builder) was held 100% liable for Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.