Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court hears dispute over roofer’s fall, control of site and excluded intoxication evidence
Summary
In No. 240846, counsel debated whether a roofer’s fall from the edge of a two‑story apartment roof is governed by premises‑liability law or a negligent‑activity theory, whether JMI exercised control that required fall protection, and whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence the worker consumed alcohol and marijuana hours earlier.
The Supreme Court of Texas heard competing views on whether liability in No. 240846, JNI Contractors v. Medihe, should rest on a premises‑defect theory or on a negligent‑activity theory tied to the contractor’s contemporaneous direction of work. Speaker 2, arguing for the party defending the jury verdict, told the court that the central evidence is the roof’s unguarded edge and testimony that JMI supervisors directed the worker to pull slippery TPO membrane toward that edge.
Why it matters: the classification—premises defect versus negligent activity—affects what duty, if any, the property occupier owed and which parties may be responsible. Speaker 1 repeatedly pressed counsel about where courts draw the line between an existing dangerous condition and a new, dangerous act that imposes a different legal standard.
Speaker 2 said the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
