Catholic Diocese Of El Paso v. Porter

622 S.W.3d 824 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

San Lorenzo Church holds an annual festival on its grounds called the Fiesta de San Lorenzo. The festival is a three-day event featuring carnival rides, games, music, food and drink, arts and crafts, and vendors selling various items. The Church receives 30 percent of the carnival's gross proceeds, sells drinks and ice, runs a number of food and activities booths, and rents space to 60 or so vendors who set up their own booths. El Paso 4-H Leaders Association (4-H) rented a booth, which it used to sell funnel cakes, gorditas, and snow cones. 4-H provided its own equipment, including a snow cone machine, a funnel-cake fryer, a steam table, and a propane tank. The booth was an enclosed space behind a counter where festival-goers could be served. The interior of the booth was off-limits to all but 4-H staffers. 4-H paid D $650 to rent the booth. The Church received no part of 4-H's sales. A fire broke out in the 4-H booth. Five volunteers-four teenagers and one adult-were working in the booth at the time, and all suffered injuries from the flames. The parents of the four teenage volunteers (the Families) sued P and Heritage Operating, L.P., which had allegedly filled 4-H's propane tank. D and Heritage maintained that the fire started when one of the volunteers dropped water or ice into a fryer. The jury returned a verdict for Ds. The jury found that the 4-H volunteers were licensees on the Church property and awarded the Families zero damages. The jury failed to find that either the Church or Heritage negligently caused the volunteers' injuries or that the Church controlled the injury-causing activity. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment on the verdict. The court of appeals held that the volunteers were invitees as a matter of law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment as to Heritage but reversed as to D, and it remanded the Families' claims against D for a new trial. D and Ps appealed.