Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Stacey D. Gailey v. Mermaid Pools of El Paso, LLC, and Robert Purdue & Co., Inc., D/B/A Mermaid Pools
Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-08-00255-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 23, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Stacey D. Gailey appeals a summary judgment favoring Mermaid Pools of El Paso, LLC and Robert Pursue Company, Inc. regarding a negligence claim after she was injured stepping into an uncovered skimmer during pool construction. Gailey contends that Mermaid Pools had a duty to either make the skimmer safe or warn her of its presence. Mermaid Pools argues it owed no duty since Gailey was the property owner. The court finds the duty issue central to the case, making it unnecessary to address Gailey's additional arguments. The court reviews the summary judgment de novo, applying a legal sufficiency standard. A no-evidence summary judgment is upheld only if there is a complete absence of evidence on a crucial fact, if the evidence is legally inadmissible, or if it merely amounts to a scintilla. The determination of duty in premises liability hinges on the plaintiff's status (invitee, licensee, trespasser) at the time of the incident, requiring a legal analysis of factors such as risk, foreseeability, and injury likelihood. Generally, landowners must exercise reasonable care for the safety of licensees and invitees. The court concludes that Mermaid Pools had no legal duty to Gailey as she was the property owner, affirming the trial court's judgment. Landowners must warn invitees and licensees of known hidden dangers that pose an unreasonable risk of harm. Liability for negligence arises from activities on the premises or defects in the premises. In this case, Gailey claims she was injured by an uncovered skimmer during construction, categorizing it as a premises defect rather than a negligent activity. The duty of a premises owner or occupier includes either warning about dangerous conditions or making them safe. Gailey, being in control of the premises, is neither an invitee, licensee, nor trespasser. She attempted to impose a duty on the independent contractor to warn her about the premises defect but provided no legal authority to support this. As a result, the court concluded that the contractor, Mermaid, had no duty to warn Gailey about the uncovered skimmer or to cover it before construction was completed. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Mermaid was affirmed.