The Houston [1st] Court of Appeals has reversed a $15 million judgment against CenterPoint Energy in a premises liability case.
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLCv. Garett Wilder (No. 01-22-00853-CV; August 7, 2025) arose in 2019 after Plaintiff fell from a CenterPoint transmission pole on which he was working. Plaintiff’s employer, L.E. Myers Co., an independent contractor for CenterPoint, instructed Plaintiff to install four missing step-bolts on a 100-foot, concrete transmission pole. As Plaintiff climbed the pole, one of the step-bolts he was tied to suddenly detached, causing him to fall 40 feet to the ground. His heart stopped upon impact. Coworkers resuscitated him and immediately rushed him to the hospital with serious injuries. Inspections revealed that before Plaintiff climbed the pole, his co-worker had mistakenly installed the step-bolt in question, unknowingly using a 9-inch step-bolt instead of the “7-and-a-quarter” inch step-bolts the project required.
Plaintiff sued CenterPoint for negligence. CenterPoint asserted Chapter 95 immunity and filed a motion to leave to designate L.E. Myers as responsible third party. The jury sided with Plaintiff, finding that CenterPoint “exercised some control over the manner in which the defect-producing work was performed, other than the right to order the work to start or stop or inspect progress or receive reports.” The court rendered judgment on the verdict and awarded Plaintiff $15,466,597 in damages. CenterPoint appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Guiney, the court of appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment against Plaintiff. CenterPoint argued that Wilder’s negligence claim was barred by Chapter 95, CPRC. Chapter 95 protects property owners from claims: (1) for damages caused by negligence resulting in personal injury […], (2) asserted against owners of real property, (3) by an owner, contractor, or subcontractor or an employee of a contractor or subcontractor, and (4) that [arise] from the condition or use of an improvement to real property where the contractor […] constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies the improvement. §§ 95.001, 95.002.
First, the court considered whether CenterPoint, as owner of the public utility easement, owned “real property” Citing its rulings in Oncor Electric Delivery Co. v. Murillo and City of Houston v. Northwood Mun. Util. Dist. No.1, the court found that public utility easements were “real property” for purposes of Chapter 95. Plaintiff then asserted that the transmission pole did not qualify as an “improvement” under the the statute. The court disagreed, finding that “improvements,” such as the transmission pole, to be “addition[s] to property, […] whether permanent or not; esp[ecially], one[s] that [increase] its value or utility or that enhances its appearance.” (Citing the definition of “Improvement,” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024)). Consequently, the court concluded that Chapter 95 applied to Plaintiff’s claim.
The court further agreed with CenterPoint that Plaintiff failed to establish his negligence claim under Chapter 95 because he did not prove that CenterPoint had “actual knowledge of the danger or condition” that resulted in the injury. At trial the trial court instructed the jury to find CenterPoint negligent if: (1) the condition was unreasonably risky, (2) “CenterPoint… knew or should have known of the danger,” and (3) failed to exercise ordinary care to protect … Wilder from the danger, by both failing to adequately warn [Wilder] and make that condition reasonably safe” (emphasis added). However, as CenterPoint asserted at trial, the jury charge allowed the jury to find “constructive knowledge” (should have known), which “does not support a reasonable inference that [the defendant] had actual knowledge of the danger” (Rawson v. Oxea Corp., 557 S.W.3d 17, 30 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. dism’d by agr.). Turning to the testimony at trial, the court found that nothing indicated a problem with the step bolt in question (it was OSHA-compliant, and Wilder himself tested and felt it was safe to clip into), that the bolt failed suddenly, and, consequently, that nobody could have known the step bolt would fail. Since Wilder’s evidence could not conclusively establish CenterPoint’s “actual knowledge” of the dangerous condition, the court concluded that Chapter 95 barred his negligence claim.
The court thus reversed the trial court and issued a take-nothing judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim.
TCJL Research Intern Shaan Rao Singh researched and prepared this article.
