Summary
The Texas Supreme Court held that a homeowner’s statement to a mail carrier to “don’t slip” adequately warned him of slippery conditions on an icy sidewalk under the totality of the circumstances. The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for consideration of issues that court had not reached.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether, as a matter of law, a homeowner's statement "don't slip" adequately warned an invitee of an unreasonably dangerous slippery condition on the homeowner's sidewalk.
- Whether the trial court properly granted traditional summary judgment on the basis that the warning negated the premises-liability element requiring reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk.
Holdings
- Absent special circumstances, a property owner's warning to an invitee is adequate if, considering the totality of the surrounding circumstances, it identifies and communicates the existence of the dangerous condition in a manner that a reasonable person would perceive and understand. A warning need not identify the specific material causing the condition.
- Assuming without deciding that ice on the Henkels' sidewalk was an unreasonably dangerous condition, Lisa Henkel's statement "don't slip" adequately warned Norman of the slippery condition as a matter of law.
Key quotations
“In sum, absent special circumstances which are not present here, a property owner’s warning to an invitee of an unreasonably dangerous condition is adequate if, given the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the warning identifies and communicates the existence of the condition in a manner that a reasonable person would perceive and understand.” (p. 5)
Factual background
On January 9, 2010, mail carrier Christopher Norman fell on the Henkels' sidewalk while delivering their mail in Houston. The weather was colder than normal, a hard freeze warning was in effect, and Lisa Henkel knew of icy conditions in the neighborhood. As Norman left the Henkels' home, Lisa told him "don't slip," and he then slipped and fell on the sidewalk. Norman alleged that the Henkels knew of ice on the sidewalk but failed to warn him adequately or remedy the condition.
Procedural history
The Henkels moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing that Lisa Henkel's statement warning Norman "don't slip" conclusively established that they had adequately warned him of the dangerous condition. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Henkels. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a general instruction not to slip was not conclusive evidence of an adequate warning. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and remanded for consideration of issues that court had not reached.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to that court to consider Norman's additional issues raised in, but not addressed by, that court.