holding that inferences from the circumstantial evidence amounted to some evidence that plaintiff had no actual knowledge of the dangerous condition
How later courts described this case
- holding that inferences from the circumstantial evidence amounted to some evidence that plaintiff had no actual knowledge of the dangerous condition
- holding that points or issues lacking supporting argument present nothing for review
- “Palais Royal actually knew that the ladder was shortened and that visibility at the top of the ladder was obscured by the ‘drop’ ceiling which Pa-lais Royal insisted on lowering. These facts, albeit circumstantial, constitute some evidence that Palais Royal knew the ladder was dangerous.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*855 O’CONNOR, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I dissent from the panel’s resolution of point of error C.10, and concur in the remainder of the judgment.
The majority sustained point of error C.10, holding there was no evidence of gross negligence. The majority’s holding is premised on the notion that the plaintiff did not introduce evidence to satisfy the subjective component of the gross negligence test. I disagree.
The evidence in this case was that Palais Royal wanted to save money on the construction project, which it did by (1) contracting with Levy for minimal architectural plans (instead of detailed plans); (2) not retaining Levy, the design architect, to oversee construction; (3) appointing a window decorator with no construction training or experience to oversee the construction and re-design of plans; and (4) ignoring Levy’s construction plans relating to safety.
Stocker, the window designer, had no training or experience with construction and design of a building. Stocker ignored Levy’s construction plans, and redesigned the ceiling and used a shorter ladder. The 16-foot ladder in Levy’s plans met the OSHA requirements. Stocker’s ladder did not.
A corporation cannot appoint someone completely untrained and inexperienced to perform a job that takes training and experience, and then claim it was not grossly negligent when someone is hurt by that person’s work. Appointing a decorator to oversee construction of a project that included serious safety matters was a prescription for disaster. Palais Royal’s actions in this case was just the sort of negligence that rises to the level of gross negligence.
I concur in the rest of the panel’s judgment.