Texas Supreme Court Upholds “Open and Obvious Danger” Precedent to Reverse $4M Verdict in Premises Liability Case

By Caitlin E. Bratt

On June 26, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court overturned and rendered a take-nothing judgment following an independent contractor roofer’s verdict in excess of $4 million for compensatory and exemplary damages against JMI Contractors LLC, in JMI Contractors, LLC v. Jose Manuel Medellin, No. 24-0846 (Tex. 2026).

In the underlying incident, roofing contractor Jose Medellin lost track of the roof’s edge while working on a two-story building in 2018, and fell about 30 feet to the ground. Medellin sustained various injuries, including a broken hip, leg and elbow. The plaintiff pleaded premises liability and negligence causes of action against JMI Contractors LLC (JMI) for failing to adequately safeguard the roof’s edge.

Analysis

The Texas Supreme Court first found that Medellin’s claims were simply premises liability claims, not an independent claim for negligent activity. The court used the terminology of malfeasance (activity) for negligent activity claims versus non-feasance (premises condition—simply a roof’s edge) for premises liability claims to explain its position on the negligent activity issue. It was further noted that the necessary-use exception does not apply to independent contractors, as they are hired for special projects and hold special expertise. Upon accepting a job, the independent contractor is presumed to be able—and indeed, expected—to evaluate the requested work and make judgment calls as to the best way to mitigate dangers posed by obvious hazards throughout the course of the job.

The Court then turned to evaluate Medellin’s premises liability cause of action against JMI. In its prior decisions, it has suggested, but never blatantly held, that independent contractors cannot recover for injuries under a premises liability theory resulting from an open and obvious danger. The Court has held since Houston National Bank v. Adair, 207 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. 1948), that a premises owner has “no duty” to protect invitees from dangerous conditions that are “open, visible and obvious to any reasonably careful person.” 

Key Point

According to the Texas Supreme Court, premises owners owe no duty to protect independent contractors from open and obvious dangers, particularly where the contractor was hired for specialized expertise and is expected to identify and account for visible hazards on the job.