Dallas Morning News Analyzes Austin v. Kroger
This morning the Dallas Morning News takes a closer look at Austin v. Kroger, a nonsubscriber premises liability case decided June 12, 2015 by the Texas Supreme Court.
In Kroger the court held that, with certain exceptions, an employer’s premises-liability duty to an employee includes only the duty to protect or warn the employee against concealed hazards of which the employer is aware, or reasonably should have been aware, but the employee is not. The Court also held that while the Texas Labor Code prohibits nonsubscribing employers from raising certain defenses, employees still must prove a nonsubscribing employer had a duty in order to establish a common law cause of action.
However, the DMN notes that the opinion contains new hope for plaintiffs who may have a “necessary instrumentalities” claim.
The Supreme Court of Texas, in a potentially precedent-setting decision issued last week, slammed the courthouse door on damages for many employees hurt while working in hazardous situations. The case affects employees of companies that have opted out of the state’s workers’ compensation system.
The justices unanimously ruled that millions of workers at the approximately 144,000 noninsured Texas businesses are no longer able to seek compensation in such cases.
But the ruling — which is a huge loss for workers under the “premises liability” law — is a bit of a two-edged sword.
In that same opinion, the high court stunned lawyers by stating that employees should be able to recover damages under a separate “negligence” law if the employer failed to provide proper equipment, training or supervision that could have prevented the injury.
The case remains pending before the high court and we anticipate that one or both parties will file motions for rehearing.
FOLIO
