# Parker v. Highland Park, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · March 15, 1978 · 565 S.W.2d 512

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770703

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruth PARKER, Petitioner, v. HIGHLAND PARK, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 15, 1978
- **Citations:** 565 S.W.2d 512
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McGEE
- **Judges:** Pope, McGee
- **Cited by:** 302 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by Kathy Houston v. Northwest Village, LTD., and Medlock Southwest Management Corporation (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770703

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the duty a landlord owes its tenants extends to the tenant’s guests
- holding that something being open and obvious does not necessarily preclude recovery, nor should it be “confused with plaintiff's initial and separate burden to prove knowledge of danger on the part of the owner”
- stating that the `no-duty' rule/open and obvious danger doctrine was incompatible with the state's comparative negligence statute, and the doctrine was only relevant to plaintiff's contributory negligence
- explaining that “the duty that the landlord owed to [the tenants] extended to their guest”
- holding that Chapter 33 replaces common law doctrines that lead to a “system of absolute victory or total defeat”

## Opinion text

McGEE, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the opinion, but I would add that there should be no instruction to the *522 jury concerning an open and obvious situation since that is a factual matter that bears upon a plaintiff’s conduct (his contributory negligence) after he has knowledge or is charged with knowledge. Such an instruction would amount to a comment upon the weight of the evidence. I would also add that there should be no instruction concerning knowledge or “no-duty,” since a plaintiff’s conduct after he possesses knowledge bears upon the reasonableness of his conduct under the circumstances.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770703. Public record. Not legal advice.