The Amarillo Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to a nursing home in a slip-and-fall case.
Patricia King v. ER OPCO Craig, LLC d/b/a The Craig Senior Living (No. 07-25-00094-CV; March 3, 2026) arose from a personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiff, a licensed vocational nurse, slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk while leaving her shift at a nursing home. A nursing home employee had emailed a manager noting that the sidewalks in front of the facility needed clearing. The manager said they were working on it but were “kinda fighting a losing battle right now” in view of the continuing snowfall. Employees of the facility were told that the management and staff would take care of the sidewalks but also “had their hands full.” Plaintiff fell and broke her hip and crawled to the facility entrance, but couldn’t get in as the automatic doors opened and closed on her. Eventually, a nurse and assistant spotted her, got her into a wheelchair, and called the ambulance. At the hospital, Plaintiff was treated for frostbite and hypothermia and had surgery on her hip. She subsequently underwent rehab at the same facility for more than a month before regaining her ability to walk. She sued the facility, which filed a traditional MSJ. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Doss, the court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff had to prove that the facility “had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises, the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, [the facility] failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, and its failure proximately caused her injuries” (citation omitted). But, “[a]s a general rule, a premises owner has no duty to clear naturally occurring ice or snow” (citations omitted). If a premises owner, however, “voluntarily undertakes to render services it knows or should know are necessary for the protection of another’s person, and ‘either (1) the failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of physical harm or (2) harm results because of the other’s reliance on the undertaking,’” a “duty may arise.”
Plaintiff argued that the facility voluntarily undertook a duty to clear the sidewalks that it then failed to perform. But did the facility’s “failure to exercise reasonable care” increase the risk of harm? Needless to say, the facility didn’t create the ice or do anything to make the ice worse than it was. “If affirmative efforts to clear ice do not change the character of the condition,” the court observed, “then failing to clear it does not either.” So what about the second prong, that the harm resulted because of Plaintiff’s reliance on the facility’s undertaking? The evidence showed otherwise. The facility stated that it was trying to clear the sidewalks but “was fighting a losing battle.” Snow was obviously falling throughout the day and the sidewalk was just as obviously ice when Plaintiff stepped onto it. “A promise to do one’s best under deteriorating conditions, paired with an acknowledgement that the effort may provide futile,” the court went on, “is not an assurance of safety on which a person may reasonably rely.” Additionally, the record didn’t indicate that Plaintiff would have acted any differently had the facility “said nothing at all.” The trial court thus properly granted the facility’s motion for summary judgment.
