Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, No. 05-0722.

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation228 S.W.3d 161
PartiesBRINSON FORD, INC., Individually and d/b/a Brinson Ford Lincoln Mercury, Petitioner, v. Connie W. ALGER, Respondent.
Decision Date15 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. 05-0722.
228 S.W.3d 161
BRINSON FORD, INC., Individually and d/b/a Brinson Ford Lincoln Mercury, Petitioner,
v.
Connie W. ALGER, Respondent.
No. 05-0722.
Supreme Court of Texas.
June 15, 2007.

Christopher J. Pruitt, John R. Lively Jr., Brown Pruitt Peterson & Wambsganss, P.C., Fort Worth, for Petitioner.

Carl D. Tillery, Tillery & Tillery, Dallas, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.


Connie Alger fell from a pedestrian ramp while visiting a car dealership and brought this premises liability action for the injuries she sustained. The trial court granted summary judgment in the premises owner's favor without specifying the ground. A divided court of appeals reversed, holding that fact issues existed as to the premises owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and whether the premises owner failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm. 169 S.W.3d 340. We hold that Alger presented no evidence of a premises condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and reverse and render judgment in Brinson Ford's favor.

228 S.W.3d 162

Connie Alger went to Brinson Ford, Inc. to pick up friends who were having work done on their car. Alger entered the dealership through a side entrance, but exited through the front door where a pedestrian ramp leads to the parking lot. Although there were handrails along most of the ramp as it sloped down to ground level, a small portion of the ramp extended beyond the handrails to the sidewalk. The highest point of this unrailed section was four inches above the sidewalk, and it was marked by yellow paint along the ramp's edges and around the parking space next to the ramp. The ramp is the dealership's main entrance, and Brinson Ford had no record that anyone had ever fallen from it in the nearly ten years between the business's opening and Alger's fall. Alger testified that when she reached the point where the handrails ended, she thought the ramp had ended too. When she turned to walk toward her car, Alger stepped off the unrailed portion of the ramp and fell.

Alger sued Brinson Ford alleging that the ramp's configuration was a premises condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm, Brinson Ford knew or should have known of the danger, and Brinson Ford failed to exercise ordinary care to protect her from it. The dealership filed a motion for summary judgment under sections (c) and (i) of Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 practice notes
  • Weldon v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.L.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-62
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • August 10, 2016
    ...case must be able to show that some condition on the premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2007) (citing Seideneck, 451 S.W.2d at 754); Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264. Significantly, "a condition is not unreasonably dangerous simp......
  • Duncan v. First Tex. Homes, NO. 02–12–00464–CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 12, 2015
    ...Tex. S. Univ. v. Gilford, 277 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (citing Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex.2007) ). In its motion, First Texas asserted that there was no evidence that it had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defe......
  • Rodriguez v. Cemex, Inc., No. 08-17-00113-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 10, 2019
    ...that a certain number of reports must have been made in order to support such a finding. See generally Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger , 228 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2007) (holding as matter of law no actual 579 S.W.3d 167 knowledge when over ten–year period no customer visiting car dealership had......
  • Pipkin v. Kroger Tex. L.P., No. 14–11–00755–CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 22, 2012
    ...406, 408 (Tex.2006). A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it presents an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex.2007) (per curiam). “A condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm for premises-defect purposes when there is a ‘sufficient probabil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
77 cases
  • Weldon v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.L.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-62
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • August 10, 2016
    ...case must be able to show that some condition on the premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2007) (citing Seideneck, 451 S.W.2d at 754); Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264. Significantly, "a condition is not unreasonably dangerous simp......
  • Duncan v. First Tex. Homes, NO. 02–12–00464–CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 12, 2015
    ...Tex. S. Univ. v. Gilford, 277 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (citing Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex.2007) ). In its motion, First Texas asserted that there was no evidence that it had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defe......
  • Rodriguez v. Cemex, Inc., No. 08-17-00113-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 10, 2019
    ...that a certain number of reports must have been made in order to support such a finding. See generally Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger , 228 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2007) (holding as matter of law no actual 579 S.W.3d 167 knowledge when over ten–year period no customer visiting car dealership had......
  • Pipkin v. Kroger Tex. L.P., No. 14–11–00755–CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 22, 2012
    ...406, 408 (Tex.2006). A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it presents an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, 228 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex.2007) (per curiam). “A condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm for premises-defect purposes when there is a ‘sufficient probabil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT