CHAMBERLAIN McHANEY SCORES LANDMARK VICTORY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT - Open and obvious worksite conditions bar all personal injury recovery as a matter of law.

In JMI Contractors, LLC v. Medellin, Chamberlain McHaney represented JMI, the general contractor, throughout the trial and appeal of this worksite injury case brought by Medellin, an independent contractor. 

Plaintiff Jose Medellin, an independent professional roofing contractor, fell approximately 30 feet from an unguarded roof edge while helping pull a rubber roofing membrane. After the trial court erroneously denied our summary judgment motion, the case proceeded to trial, and the jury found for Medellin on negligent activity and premises liability theories and awarded substantial damages. We appealed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the gravamen of Medellin’s claim was JMI’s alleged failure to make the roof edge safe—a claim of nonfeasance tied to a premises condition—rather than affirmative, contemporaneous negligent conduct by JMI. The Court also held that the record did not support an independent negligent-activity claim because the instruction to pull the roofing membrane came from another independent contractor, not from JMI, and JMI did not retain the particularized control necessary to impose liability under retained-control principles.

The Court further held that Medellin’s premises-liability claim failed as a matter of law because the unguarded roof edge was an open and obvious danger. Most significantly, the Court resolved an issue it had previously left open by holding that an independent contractor cannot invoke the necessary-use exception to avoid the open-and-obvious rule. A roof edge is an open and obvious condition and an inherent risk in the work of a professional roofer. The Court reasoned that independent contractors are expected to evaluate and account for obvious jobsite hazards, decide how to perform their work safely, bring or select appropriate equipment, and decline work they cannot safely perform. Because Medellin was an experienced roofing worker who understood the risk of falling from an unguarded roof, the Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of JMI.