HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of the city of Houston’s jurisdictional plea in a slip and fall lawsuit.
Caro, a United Airlines flight attendant, filed suit against Houston, which argued that it had not waived its immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the city’s plea and the appeal followed.
On Appeal, Houston argued that the trial court erred when it denied its plea to the jurisdiction because it did not have actual knowledge of the water on the floor that caused Caro to slip and fall.
On April 23, the 14th Court found that there is a fact issue on each of the elements challenged by Houston, concluding that the trial court did not err when it denied Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction.
According to the opinion. Caro was walking to work in a terminal at IAH when she slipped on water accumulating beneath an air conditioning vent.
Caro asserts that she did not see a puddle on the floor after she fell, and there were no warning signs or barricades present. Because of the fall, Caro suffered an inoperable tear of a tendon in her right leg, and her injured right eyebrow experienced nerve damage.
Justices found that Houston’s knowledge of a condensation issue with IAH’s air conditioning vents spanned years and that a custodial supervisor saw the vent where Caro slipped dripping less than 24 hours before she fell.
“Here, the evidence shows that Houston attempted to eliminate the condensation problem by changing the metal air conditioning vents in other areas of IAH to wooden vents, but it had not done so in the area where Caro slipped and fell,” the opinion states. “In addition, while Houston points to evidence from its Custodial Supervisor that the water spill had been cleaned up the day before Caro’s fall, there is other evidence in the record that water was dripping from the vent immediately after Caro fell, and there was no warning sign or barricade around the splash area beneath the air conditioning vent.
“Having overruled Houston’s issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.”
Appeals case No. 14-23-00319-CV