Supreme Court Rules Against Injured Cyclist

In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against a bicyclist who steered around a street barricade and struck a chain across a dark street. The university had not placed customary cones and reflective tape near the barricade and chain. In the case of The University of Texas at Austin v. Hayes, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2010)(12/3/10), the Supreme Court ruled that the chain did not constitute a "special defect," and that the cyclist did not prove that the university had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, which is a necessary element for a premises defect theory.
"Whether a condition is a special defect is a question of law." "The Legislature does not define special defect but likens it to conditions 'such as excavations or obstructions on highways, roads, or streets.'" "[C]onditions can be special defects "'only if they pose a threat to the ordinary users of a particular roadway.'" "[W]e have previously considered characteristics of the class of special defect, such as (1) the size of the condition, (2) whether the condition unexpectedly and physically impairs a vehicle's ability to travel on the road, (3) whether the condition presents some unusual quality apart from the ordinary course of events, and (4) whether the condition presents an unexpected and unusual danger to the ordinary users of the roadway." This is a "narrow" class. A hole covering 90% of the road is one, but not a "two-inch drop." "Our special-defect jurisprudence turns on the objective expectations of an 'ordinary user' who follows the 'normal course of travel.'" So, a floodgate arm three feet off the road was not a special defect because "an 'ordinary user' would not have left the roadway. . . ." Likewise, here, the cyclist "did not take the normal course of travel." He should have turned back, and an ordinary user "would not have traveled beyond the barricade." Accordingly, this is not a "special defect."
The Court further said that the cyclist failed to prove a premises defect case. "To establish a waiver of immunity for a premises-defect claim, the plaintiff must show that the landowner failed to either (1) use ordinary care to warn a licensee of a condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm of which the landowner is actually aware and the licensee is not, or (2) make the condition reasonably safe." "To prove the actual-knowledge element, the licensee must show that the owner actually knew of a 'dangerous condition at the time of the accident.'" Though the university knew of the chain, it also "had placed a large barricade in front of the chain." Somehow, that "negates arguments that the University had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition. . . ."
Evidence that a parking representative imagined bicyclists would go around the chain and that it would be possible to hit it did not prove actual knowledge. "[A]ctual knowledge requires the landowner to know 'that the dangerous condition existed at the time of the accident, not merely of the possibility that a dangerous condition c[ould] develop over time.'" Also, evidence that the university typically put reflectors and cones near the barricade and chain was insufficient: proof that the school "could have done more to warn him is not direct evidence to show that the University had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition." Moreover, the investigating police officer's report - written after the incident - that poor lighting made it difficult to see the chain "is not evidence of what the University knew at the time of the accident."

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories