Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Hernandez v. Brinker Int’l, Inc – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Hernandez v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2009, no pet.), the contractor's employee was making repairs to an air conditioner on the roof of the building. Id. at 153-54.

As the employee was carrying an air conditioner compressor off of the roof, the roof collapsed. Id. at 154.

Evidence at trial showed that a week before the injury, the property owner had scheduled a roof replacement due to some leaking and a soft spot in the roof; the property owner failed to warn the employee there were problems with the roof. Id.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with one justice dissenting, held that because the employee was hired to repair the air conditioner, and not the roof, chapter 95 did not apply to his claims. Id. at 161.