# Palais Royal, Inc. v. Gunnels

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · September 2, 1998 · 976 S.W.2d 837

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777707

## Case

- **Full name:** PALAIS ROYAL, INC., Appellant, v. Frank GUNNELS, Sr.; Jane Gunnels; H.A. Lott, Inc.; Sharpstown Center Associates; Levy Architects Associates, Inc.; And Strange Loop Construction Company, Inc., Appellees
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** September 2, 1998
- **Citations:** 976 S.W.2d 837; 1998 WL 350582
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Cohen, O'Connor, Taft
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777707. Public record. Not legal advice.