Texas Supreme Court
HOUSTON — The Texas Supreme Court has ruled independent contractors cannot recover in premises liability for an injury resulting from an open and obvious danger, wiping a $4.3 million judgment.
While working on a construction site as an independent contractor, Jose Medellin fell off a roof and sustained serious injuries. He sued the general contractor, JMI Contractors, alleging negligent activity and premises liability, according to the high court’s June 26 opinion.
Court records show there is no allegation that he was at any time an employee of either JMI or Metal Roof, the company that retained him to assist.
At trial, the jury considered two claims: negligent activity and premises liability, finding JMI liable for both. Jurors awarded Medellin more than $3.3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $1 million in exemplary damages.
The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, and a court of appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court was tasked to tackle two issues: whether a workplace injury gives rise to a cause of action for negligent activity or premises liability, and whether independent contractors like Medellin can recover for injuries caused by open and obvious dangers.
Justices concluded that Medellin’s claim sounds in premises liability, not negligent activity, because his injury stems from nonfeasance, not malfeasance.
“We further conclude that Medellin’s premises-liability claim fails as a matter of law,” the opinion states. “In two previous decisions, we have suggested, but never squarely held, that independent contractors cannot recover in premises liability for an injury resulting from an open and obvious danger. Today, we elevate those suggestions to a holding. As an independent contractor, Medellin agreed to work on a roofing project, which necessarily presented the open and obvious risk of a fall.
“Medellin cannot maintain a claim for premises liability when that open and obvious danger caused his injury.”
Justices reversed the judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of JMI.
Supreme Court case No. 24-0846
