## Facts

- Lowe Chemical Company operated a chemical manufacturing and recycling facility that used “scrubbing pits,” which were open concrete vats containing very hot water mixed with acid and other chemicals.
- Near a device called a “scrubber,” Lowe maintained two open scrubbing pits with a narrow concrete walkway (about three to four feet wide) between the scrubber and the pits.
- The pits were uncovered and lacked guardrails, fencing, or similar protective devices; the curbing around them was low and unmarked.
- Charles F. Greenwood worked for a construction company (an independent contractor) hired to perform work on Lowe’s premises, making Greenwood an invitee while on site for that work.
- Greenwood and other contractor employees worked at the plant for several months before the accident and were warned about the danger of the pits and the corrosive liquids they contained.
- The evidence showed the danger was widely known among the workers; Greenwood and his co-workers understood the pits contained hot, harmful chemical liquid and cautioned others to be careful around them.
- On January 19, 1965, Greenwood was asked to bring a section of a 16-foot extension ladder to the scrubber.
- While carrying or positioning the ladder in the narrow space between the scrubber and one of the pits, Greenwood stepped backward off the walkway; one leg entered the pit, he lost his balance, and he fell completely into the pit.
- Greenwood suffered severe chemical and heat burns and died about four days later.
- Greenwood’s widow, Rebecca Greenwood, sued Lowe under Texas wrongful-death and survival theories, alleging Lowe was negligent for failing to exercise care commensurate with the risk by failing to fence/rail, cover, or otherwise protect against the pit.

## Issues

1. Whether a premises occupier owes a duty to protect or further warn an invitee (including an independent contractor’s employee) against an open and obvious condition when the invitee had actual knowledge of the condition and appreciated the danger.
2. Whether Lowe was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because Greenwood knew of and understood the danger posed by the hot, corrosive scrubbing pit.

## Decision

- The court of civil appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Lowe Chemical Company.
- The court held that, under Texas premises-liability law applied in the case, Lowe owed no duty to protect Greenwood from the scrubbing pit’s danger because the condition was open and obvious and Greenwood knew and appreciated the risk.
- Because the material facts about visibility and knowledge were not disputed, summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A premises occupier generally must use ordinary care to make the premises reasonably safe for invitees or warn of dangerous conditions not open and obvious and not known to the invitee.
- When a condition is open and obvious and the invitee has actual knowledge of it and appreciates the danger, the premises occupier has no duty to warn further or to change the premises to prevent the invitee from encountering that known danger.
- A landowner is not an insurer of invitee safety and is not required to fence, cover, or redesign areas to protect an invitee from a danger the invitee fully understands and can avoid through ordinary care.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence conclusively shows the absence of a duty under the governing premises-liability rule, leaving no genuine issue of material fact for trial.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for Lowe because the hot, corrosive scrubbing pit was open and obvious, and Greenwood had been warned about it and understood the risk after months of working around it; under the controlling Texas rule, Lowe therefore owed no further duty to warn or to install guards or covers, so Greenwood’s widow could not recover on a premises-negligence theory.


Greenwood v. Lowe Chemical Co., 428 S.W.2d 358 (1968)