Texas Supreme Court to Review Liability for Employee Injuries on Public Roadways
In a significant development, the Texas Supreme Court has granted the petition for review in the case of HNMC, Inc. v. Chan, 637 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021). The court’s decision to review the case highlights the central question of whether an employer can be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee while crossing a public roadway that divides the employer’s property.
The case revolves around an unfortunate incident involving Chan, a nurse employed by HNMC, Inc. While walking across a roadway that separated HNMC’s hospital from its parking lot, Chan was tragically struck by a vehicle. The roadway in question is owned and operated by Harris County. Following Chan’s death, her estate filed a lawsuit against the driver responsible for the accident as well as HNMC, asserting claims of negligent property design and failure to warn.
After a trial, the jury found HNMC partially responsible for the accident, and the trial court entered a judgment awarding damages against the employer. HNMC appealed the decision to the court of appeals, which affirmed the judgment. The court of appeals ruled that HNMC had failed to preserve its argument that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act barred Chan’s claims. Additionally, the court held that HNMC owed a duty of care to Chan because the risk of serious injury on the roadway was highly foreseeable.
In its petition for review, HNMC put forth two primary arguments. First, the employer contended that property owners adjacent to public roadways are generally not obligated to assume liability for risks associated with the road. Since HNMC did not create or conceal any dangers relating to crossing the roadway, it argued that no duty should be imposed upon it. Second, HNMC argued that if any fault lies with the property design of the hospital, Chan’s recovery should be pursued through the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act rather than a common-law action.
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision to grant HNMC’s petition for review signifies the court’s recognition of the importance and potential impact of this case. By accepting the review, the court aims to provide clarity and guidance on the issue of employer liability for employee injuries on public roadways. The court will have the opportunity to thoroughly examine the arguments presented by HNMC and determine their validity in light of existing legal principles and precedents.
FOLIO
