CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen - 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000)

Rule:

The duty owed by an owner or occupier of premises to an invitee is not that of an insurer. The duty owed is to exercise reasonable care to protect against danger from a condition on the land that creates an unreasonable risk of harm of which the owner or occupier knew or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover. Because the core of the duty depends on actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition that a reasonable inspection would reveal, it follows that an owner or occupier is not liable for deterioration of its premises unless it knew of or by reasonable inspection would have discovered the deterioration.

Facts:

Appellee was delivering mobile home parts to the supply shed, a converted mobile home whose only entrance was a stand-alone unit flush against the entrance, three steps leading to a platform. As he stepped onto the unit, off the back of the truck, the unit became unstable and he was injured. Appellee sued appellant on a premises liability theory. Appellee argued that the appellant knew that over time, the step and platform unit inevitably would become unstable and would have to be replaced. The jury found in appellee's favor. Appellant sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Was there evidence that the premises owner knew or had constructive knowledge of the alleged unreasonable risk of harm that can make the premises owner liable for the appellee’s injury? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment. The court noted that the duty owed by an owner or occupier of premises to an invitee was to exercise reasonable care to protect against danger from a condition on the land that creates an unreasonable risk of harm of which the owner or occupier knew or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover. In this case, the court held that the appellee had failed to meet his burden of proof, as there was no evidence that appellant knew or had constructive knowledge that the step and platform unit leading to its supply shed posed an unreasonable risk of harm.