Texas Businesses often find themselves being liable for many things. Sometimes this means being subject to a premises-liability claim. The justification for this type of claim lies in the argument that an “An owner or occupier of land has a duty to keep the premises under his or her control in a safe condition.” (Courtois) Yet, where does this responsibility begin and end? Is a business owner liable for the actions of an individual even if the individual makes the choice to involve himself in unsafe conditions within an establishment? This essay will look into a case which considers these questions: Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith. What were the details of this case, who won, and why? Were any dissenting opinions present? Was the ruling a …show more content…
Justice Hecht and Justice Johnson joined in their dissent, while Justice Wainwright delivered his own dissenting opinion. Hecht criticized the majority ruling on the grounds that the judgment provided no general rule and left land owners or occupiers without any guidance towards liability claims. (Hecht 2) He also placed much of the blame on Smith for choosing not to leave prior to the fight. Hecht argued that Smith had considerable time to vacate the premises in addition to being fully aware about the trouble brewing. Because of this, Hecht would have awarded the case to Del Lago instead of Smith. Johnson joined in his opinion, but also contested the “premise as to the duty Del Lago owed to Smith.” (Johnson 1) He disagreed with the majority opinion's interpretation of previous cases which the majority used as the basis for their own judgment. Justice Wainwright provided his own dissenting opinion in which he contests the premises-liability claim brought forth by Smith. He states, “this case presents not a premises liability but a negligent activity case.” (Wainwright 2) Wainwright thus dissented because he did not believe the case was submitted with the proper