Pence Construction Corporation v. Watson
| Decision Date | 21 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. B--2566,B--2566 |
| Citation | 470 S.W.2d 637 |
| Parties | PENCE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Francia K. WATSON, Guardian of the Estate of Travis H. Watson, non composmentis, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Sam W. Cruse and William H. Payne, Houston, for petitioner.
Foreman, Dyess, Prewett & Henderson, A. D. Dyess and J. Anthony Hale, Houston, for respondent.
The employee of a subcontractor sued the general contractor for damages suffered by falling through an opening on the roof of a building under construction. The trial court withdrew the case from the jury after plaintiff rested, and judgment was rendered for defendant. The court of civil appeals held the evidence to raise an issue as to the violation of a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff and remanded the case for trial. 462 S.W.2d 81. We reinstate the trial court's judgment.
Pence Construction Corporation was general contractor to build a one-story commercial building. It subcontracted the roof decking work to Shelton W. Greer Company. On June 23, 1966 a Greer Company crew began performance. At that point the building consisted of a concrete slab with sides enclosed but without any covering on the structural steel framing. In addition to the bar joists of the skeleton for the roof, provision for three vents was made by steel angles welded in box shape at the proper locations. On June 23 a Greer Company crew welded galvanized metal sheets to cover this skeleton, but the three openings were left where the vents would be. On the following day another Greer Company crew came to the job to pour a layer of vermiculite, a light-weight concrete mixture, on top of the metal sheeting to complete the roof deck. Travis Watson, the plaintiff, was foreman of this second Greer Company crew. He arrived at the site on June 24 by 7:30 a.m. We do not know how much time Watson spent on top of the structure or how he fell; but in the early afternoon when he was apparently removing two unused metal sheets, he fell through one of the vent openings approximately 32 1/2 inches square. He was very badly hurt.
It is plaintiff's contention that the general contractor should have barricaded or covered this opening to discharge a duty to provide a safe place of work for the subcontractor's employee. The duty of Pence, as general contractor, to Watson, as an employee of a subcontractor, is that duty of the owner or occupant of land owed to a person invited to use the premises for business purposes. Smith v. Henger, 148 Tex. 456, 226 S.W.2d 425 (1950). The duty is discharged by a warning to the invitee of unreasonable risks of harm either known to the general contractor or which would be known to him by reasonable inspection. Western Auto Supply Co. v. Campbell, 373 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.Sup.1964). No warning need be given by the general contractor as to those dangers which the contractor knows to be within the knowledge of the invitee. McKee, General Contractor, Inc. v. Patterson, 153 Tex. 517, 271 S.W.2d 391 (1954); Lowe Chemical Co. v. Greenwood, 433 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Sup.1968).
In Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp. v. Henry, 416 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.Sup.1967), it was held that an adequate warning to the subcontractor, or one supervising his work, would discharge the duty of the occupier (general contractor) to warn the employees of that subcontractor. It was there decided that to require that Delhi-Taylor have warned every workman on the project of the dangerous condition would exact an impossible burden. Since the subcontractor holds a duty to his employees to warn them of dangers where they are working, the general contractor should not ordinarily be required to anticipate his failure to do so.
Under the holding in Delhi-Taylor, even if the openings had not been the work of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abalos v. Oil Development Co. of Texas
...and not that of the owner of the premises. Shell Chemical Company v. Lamb, 493 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.1973)- ; Pence Construction Corp. v. Watson, 470 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.1971); Hailey v. Missouri K & T Ry., 70 S.W.2d 249, Tex.Civ.App.1934, writ Granted that Morgan, who arrived after the Ruthco crew h......
-
Hite v. Maritime Overseas Corporation
...46, 124 S.E.2d 580, 95 A.L.R.2d 1333 (1962); Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Henry, 416 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.1967); Pence Construction Corp. v. Watson, 470 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.1971); 40 Tex.Jur.2d 532; Hogge v. United States, 354 F.Supp. 429 (E.D.Va. 1972); Cannon v. Clarke, 209 Va. 708, 167 S.E.2d ......
-
McBroome-Bennett Plumbing, Inc. v. Villa France, Inc.
...property would be analogous to its duty of care for the safety of the subcontractor's employees. See Pence Construction Corp. v. Watson, 470 S.W.2d 637, 638 (Tex.1971). ...
-
Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, C14-90-00552-CV
... ... suit under this provision, appellees argue that appellants' construction of this provision would transform the provision into a prohibited ... ...