# 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/9777708

## 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 Taft
- **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/9777708

## 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

TAFT, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
To uphold the jury’s determination that Palais Royal was 100 percent liable, the majority opinion relies on Palais Royal’s interrogatory answers that, at times, denied any party other than Frank Gunnels was at fault. While this may be sufficient to avoid a legal sufficiency challenge, a neutral view of all of the evidence compels the conclusion that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and manifestly unjust. See Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986)(stating standard of review).
There is no denying that Palais Royal was responsible for the original construction, in 1984, of the ladder from which Gunnels fell. At the time of the fall in 1992, however, Gunnels was a subcontractor on a remodeling job. The general contractor, H.A. Lott, was in charge of safety on the job site where the ladder was located. The only person who ever expressed doubts about the ladder, pri- or to Gunnels’s fall, was Larry Sowell, an employee of Gunnels. Sowell had told Todd Scott, assistant superintendent for H.A. Lott, that the ladder was “real awkward.” H.A Lott’s superintendent, Carl Price, considered the ladder safe, however. So did all the Palais Royal employees who had used it for eight years without incident.
Palais Royal’s expert, Michael Adams, testified that H.A. Lott was negligent for not identifying the ladder as a safety hazard. As set out in the majority opinion, Adams also testified the ladder was so far out of compliance with acceptable standards that it was inherently hazardous. Nevertheless, Price, who had the most authority over safety on the job site and to whom safety was a full-time job, had personally climbed the ladder and thought it safe. Thus, he never considered posting warnings of any hazard.
Under these circumstances, the jury’s verdict that Palais Royal was 100 percent liable for the injuries suffered by Frank Gunnels is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Accordingly, I would sustain Palais Royal’s point of error C.8. Therefore, I concur in the reversal as to exemplary damages, but dissent from the affirmance of the trial *856 court’s judgment in all other respects. 1
. I join in all portions of the majority opinion except for the discussion of point of error C.8.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777708. Public record. Not legal advice.