City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 18 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-0892,95-0892 |
| Citation | 931 S.W.2d 535 |
| Parties | 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 48 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Petitioner, v. Carlos D. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Paula Dlugosz, Lloyd Garza, San Antonio, for Petitioner.
Charles Kendall Harrell, Bart L. Brzozowski, San Antonio, for Respondent.
Carlos D. Rodriguez sued the City of San Antonio for injuries he received while playing basketball at a city-owned and -operated recreation center. Rodriguez claims he went up for a rebound, landed in a wet spot on the floor, slipped, and injured his knee. The district court rendered judgment for Rodriguez on a favorable jury verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed. --- S.W.2d ----, 1995 WL 905527.
The district court instructed the jury as follows:
With respect to the conditions of the premises, the City of San Antonio was negligent if--
a. The condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; and
b. The City of San Antonio had actual knowledge of the danger; and
c. Carlos D. Rodriguez did not have actual knowledge of the danger; and
d. The City of San Antonio failed to adequately warn Carlos D. Rodriguez of the condition or make the condition reasonably safe.
The City complains that paragraph (d) incorrectly states its duty because it allowed the jury to find negligence if the City either failed to warn Rodriguez or failed to make the condition reasonably safe. The City is correct, as we have held today in a similar context. State v. Williams, --- S.W.2d ---- (Tex.1996) (per curiam).
Regarding harm, the court of appeals wrote:
The City stipulated they did not give adequate warnings. Hence, the only way the City could discharge its duty was to make the condition reasonably safe. Consequently, even if the instruction was unclear as submitted, which it is not, no error resulted because the jury was left with only one possibility.
--- S.W.2d at ----. This reasoning is flawed. Because the City did not give adequate warnings, the jury could have found negligence under subparagraph (d) without considering whether the City had made the condition reasonably safe. This was one of the alternatives afforded by the erroneous instruction. Because the instruction amounted to a directed verdict on that contested element of liability, the error was harmful. Thus, the judgment must be reversed. Because the district court followed the pattern jury charge in instructing the jury, the error should not result in rendition of judgment against Rodriguez. Rather, the case must be remanded for a new trial. See Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 154, 157-158 (Tex.1994).
The water on the floor of the basketball court came from a leak in the roof. The evidence is undisputed that the City knew of the leaks in the roof, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith
...CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 98-99 (Tex.2000); • Leaking water making a basketball court slippery, City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 931 S.W.2d 535, 536-37 (Tex.1996); • Store abduction occasioned by premises owner's disconnection of existing security alarm devices, poor externa......
-
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson
...however. See City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 934 S.W.2d 699, 705 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1995) reed per curiam on other grounds, 931 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.1996); Clark Equipment Co., 923 S.W.2d at 125; Lone Star Ford, Inc. v. Carter, 848 S.W.2d 850, 853-55 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1993,......
-
Hoyt v. Lane Constr. Corp.
...Texas law, actual knowledge can be proved through direct evidence or reasonable inference. For example, in City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez , 931 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam), the plaintiff slipped on a city-owned basketball court. See id. at 536. The city had actual knowledge of lea......
-
Town of Highland Park v. McCullers
...argue that the Town's actual knowledge of the 646 S.W.3d 589 dangerous condition of the flood may be proven by reasonable inference. 931 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam).14 However, in Reyes the Texas Supreme Court distinguished Rodriguez :[In Rodriguez ], the plaintiff, while playi......