TX Rejects “Dual-Role Theory” in Premises Liability

In 1992, Occidental Chemical installed a pH-balancing system on its premises in order to keep its employees from having to haul containers up a ladder.  Six years later, the company sold the premises.  Eight years after the sale, an employee of the new owner was injured on the system.  Is Occidental liable for the injury?  The “dual-role theory” would hold owners of property liable in premises liability and as designers of defective equipment.  Reversing the intermediate appellate court’s opinion for the plaintiff, the Texas Supreme Court wrote:

We conclude, however, that a claim against a previous owner for injury allegedly caused by

a dangerous condition of real property remains a premises-liability claim, regardless of the previous

property owner’s role in creating the condition. Because the previous owner sold the property

several years before the plaintiff’s accident and did not otherwise owe the plaintiff a duty of care

apart from its ownership and control of the property, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and

render judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

The opinion is here.  Commentary by Wen Fa of Pacific Legal Foundation is here.