BlogLine

HNMC, Inc. v. Chan, et al.: Texas Supreme Court reinforces boundaries of property owner liability in fatal accident case

6/19/24

By: Yee S. Cheung

On January 19, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court held in HNMC, Inc. v. Chan et al. that a property owner is not liable for an accident occurring on an adjacent roadway when the owner does not control the conditions that caused the accident. This 9-0 decision reversed the Houston’s 14th Court of Appeals’ ruling that imposed a new duty on a hospital to ensure pedestrian safety on a nearby county road. 

HNMC arose from a 2015 fatal accident where a Houston Northwest Medical Center (HNMC) nurse was struck by a vehicle while crossing mid-block to reach the employee parking lot. Despite crosswalks at each end of the block, employees frequently crossed mid-block near the hospital entrance, causing multiple accidents between 2008 and 2012. The hospital requested safety measures from the county, which were not implemented. HNMC took no further action. 

After the 2015 accident, the nurse’s estate and surviving family sued the driver and the driver’s employer. The employer designated the hospital and Harris County as responsible third parties, and the plaintiffs added the hospital as a defendant. The jury apportioned responsibility to the driver at 40%, Harris County at 30%, HNMC at 20%, and the nurse at 10%. The hospital appealed the judgment, and while a panel of the Court of Appeals initially found no duty on the hospital’s part, an en banc reconsideration affirmed the trial court’s judgment by a 5-4 vote, creating a new duty for the hospital based on the factors listed in Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillip, 801 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1990). The Texas Supreme Court granted review. 

In an opinion by Justice Busby, the Texas Supreme Court reversed Houston’s 14^th Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court focused on whether existing duty or no-duty rules applied to the circumstances of the case. Justice Busby emphasized that property owners generally have no duty to ensure the safety of individuals on adjacent public roadways or to protect them from third-party actions. Justice Busby emphasized that the general no-duty rule was applicable, ruling out the use of the Phillip factors. He concluded that the hospital’s duty was limited to addressing any dangerous conditions in the specific areas of the public right-of-way it controlled, such as a concrete pad, driveway, and traffic control signs. 

The Texas Supreme Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the hospital responsible for the nurse’s death due to conditions it did not control. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the Texas Supreme Court rendered a take-nothing judgment for the hospital. 

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in HNMC highlights a critical principle in Texas tort law: courts may not create new, case-specific duties when an existing duty or no-duty rule already addresses the factual situation at hand. This ruling reinforces that property owners are not liable for accidents on adjacent roadways unless they control the conditions causing the accident. Even if a property owner is aware of an obvious danger on nearby property, there is no duty to ensure safety if they do not control that property. 

Please do not hesitate to contact Yee Cheung at Yee.Cheung@fmglaw.com or your local FMG relationship partner to discuss this important opinion or for any related Tort questions.