Forum

Texas Supreme Court

Case Status

Decided

Docket Number

13-0961

Oral Argument Date

September 03, 2015

Share

Case Updates

Texas Supreme Court clarifies limitations on premises liability for former property owners

January 08, 2016

The Texas Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas and rendered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiff.

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief

February 13, 2015

The U.S. Chamber filed a coalition amicus brief on the merits urging the Texas Supreme Court to overturn a court of appeals’ decision that fundamentally misapplied Texas “premises liability” law, exposing property owners to virtually unlimited litigation related to improvements to real property long after that property had been sold to new owners. The brief asked the Texas Supreme court to clarify that a seller of real property is not subject to liability for personal injury subsequently suffered as a result of any dangerous condition that may have existed at the time the new owner took possession of the property.

The Chamber filed the brief jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council.

Richard A. Smith and Christopher Patton of Lynn Tillotson Pinker Cox LLP represented the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Review granted

June 06, 2014

U.S. Chamber urges Texas Supreme Court to review limitations on premises liability for former property owners

April 22, 2014

In its coalition brief, the U.S. Chamber asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the court of appeals’ decision in order to clarify Texas law on the scope of a former property owner’s common law duties. The brief argues that the decision of the court of appeals affirming that Texas common law currently permits property owners to be held liable for negligence in the design and construction of improvements to the realty long after it has been sold to new owners. Imposing an ongoing duty of care on a former owner, who no longer has any right or ability to control, improve, or eliminate an allegedly dangerous condition on the property, makes no policy sense. The brief points out that it is contrary to the majority rule, embodied in § 352 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, that the seller of real property is not liable for physical harm caused to the buyer or to others by any dangerous condition that existed at the time the buyer took possession of the property.

The Chamber filed the brief jointly with the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

Richard A. Smith and Christopher Patton of Lynn Tillotson Pinker Cox LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Case Documents

Search