17 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Read v. Scott Fetzer Co.green2 sentences2009See Read v. Scott Fetzer Co., 990 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. 1998). 2009See Read v. Scott Fetzer Co., 990 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.1998). | 10 | 10 |
Way v. Boy Scouts of Americagreen2 sentences1998Id. at 234 . 1995Way v. Boy Scouts of Am., 856 S.W.2d 230, 234 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993, writ denied). | 2 | 4 |
Bird v. W.C.W.green2 sentences2011In determining whether to create a duty, we “must consider the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of placing that burden on the actor.” Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex. 1994) Michael and Douglas address only the foreseeability element of the risk-utility test. 2010This cannot be the case, however, because “foreseeability alone is not a sufficient basis for creating a new duty.” Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex. 1994). 7 known deviations from the design. | 2 | 2 |
Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co.green1 sentence2019And even assuming under these facts that Norman could bring a claim for general negligence, the Association in its motion for summary judgment challenged the existence of a legal duty owed to him regarding the downed tree and maintenance of trail safety regardless of whether the duty arose under a premises liability theory based on Norman’s status at the time of the injury or a general negligence theory balancing test.4 See Kalinchuk, 2016 WL 4376628 , at *3–4 (explaining whether the plaintiff’s claim is a claim for negligence as he argued or a premises liability claim as the defendant contend | 1 | 1 |
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. James Levinegreen1 sentence2019See United Scaffolding, 537 S.W.3d at 472 (“We have recognized that slip/trip-and-fall cases have consistently been treated as premises defect causes of action. | 1 | 1 |
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smithgreen1 sentence2019And even assuming under these facts that Norman could bring a claim for general negligence, the Association in its motion for summary judgment challenged the existence of a legal duty owed to him regarding the downed tree and maintenance of trail safety regardless of whether the duty arose under a premises liability theory based on Norman’s status at the time of the injury or a general negligence theory balancing test.4 See Kalinchuk, 2016 WL 4376628 , at *3–4 (explaining whether the plaintiff’s claim is a claim for negligence as he argued or a premises liability claim as the defendant contend | 1 | 1 |
Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2009Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). -4- 04-08-00790-CV However, this court can recognize a new duty based on the risk-utility balancing test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nattrass v. Rosenthal and Co.
green
1 sentence1994In support of her position that appellees owed her a duty, appellant cites Nattrass v. Rosenthal and Co., 641 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.