Check Before You Wreck

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi

David W. Rowland V. City of Corpus Christi

Negligence Case

• This case is Negligence Because David Rowland said the city was negligent in not properly warning him of the dangers he faced while diving from the seawall

David W. Rowland V. City of Corpus Christi

• Swimmer David Rowland dived from the seawall of the bay into marina break waters

• He Argued the city knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions

City Wins

• Outline of Cases:• Case 1: • Just before dusk on August 14, 1978 David Rowland

dived from the seawall of the Corpus Christi Bay into the marina breakwaters and broke his neck in doing so.

• He alleged the city failed to hive him proper warning of the conditions which caused his injury

• The only waning sign said “ Caution Deep Water: Lower steps Slippery when wet”

• The City denied all liability stating that the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of David

Jury Found in Response to Special Issues that

• Condition of the area where Rowland dived in was dangerous

• City had knowledge of the dangerous conditions

• The city should have discovered the dangerous condition through exercising ordinary care

• The caution sign “ Caution Deep Water: Lower steps Slippery when wet” was inadequate and failed to give proper warning

Non Obstante Veridicto

• The City then filed a motion for judgment non obstante veridicto

• In filing such a motion the court must consider all the evidence and only the evidence favorable to support the jury’s findings

• In reviewing the evidence the courts were trying to determine whether Rowland, at the time of the accident was an invitee, licensee, or trespasser, and whether the City had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition

Break Down of Cases

• Case 1- 94th District Court, Nueces County. The jury found in favor of David however the trial judge granted the city’s motion for judgment and entered a take nothing judgment against David Rowland

• The City was awarded favorable judgment in the case

• David Appealed

Did you Enjoy waking up at 8am?

http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UScyMoMTVg

Water related accident while man was trespassing on a city property spill way

Topics for Court Case 2, Court of Civil Appeals

The user classification of David at the time of the accident

If the City was to be held responsible to provide proper warning of the dangerous conditions

• INVITEE- City would have had the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, including inspecting the land for any latent defect and to make it safe or provide adequate warning

 

• LICENSEE- City would owe Rowland the duty to not injure him willfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence- An intentional failure to perform a duty in reckless disregard of the safety and property of others. It is an act of omission or commission of an aggravated nature as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ORDINARY CARE. And to warn or make safe dangerous conditions that the City knew of.

-Part of their responsibility is to conduct frequent checks of the area for potential hazardous conditions to prevent a harmful incident

 

• TRESPASSER- City would owe him a duty to not injure him willfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence

The general Testing for whether the person is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser are the following…• Invitee: Where the injured person at the

time of the injury has business relations with the owner of the premises, which Rowland did not.

• Licensee: Test whether the presence of the individual was for his own purposes, benefits, convenience, or pleasure.

• Trespasser: Entering the property without any right, lawful authority. Merely for his own purposes, pleasure, or convenience

What was Rowland?

• Not a business or public invitee- He did not pay a fee for a service or to get onto the land nor did they voluntarily invite him onto the land.

• -If he was a trespasser the City owed him no duty of protection or warning of dangerous conditions

• - If he was a licensee then they would have had to warn or make safe any dangerous condition.

What’s the verdict, you decide!

?

Rowland Hit his Head While Surfacing:

• My Gable the marina superintendent testified that there is no swimming allowed in the area because of the danger of moving watercrafts. Additionally he said he had only seen 3 swimmers in the last 14 years

• Rowland testified he hit his head while ascending after the dive. He was on his way back towards the surface when he collided with something

• After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, they found that there was no concluding evidence that the City of Corpus Christi had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition on which Rowland struck his head

Case 2- Court of Civil Appeals

• Granted the verdict in favor of the City of Corpus Christi

• And there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that the city had any knowledge of the dangerous conditions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmnhX6WBdK0

Attractive nuisance liability?

That’s IT!Brought to By:

Mark TavernoBrian MuenchAaron Munson