Background and Procedural History

Garett Wilder, an employee of an independent contractor hired to install step bolts on a concrete electric transmission pole owned by CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, sustained injuries in a 40-foot fall from the pole. Wilder brought a negligence action against CenterPoint in Harris County's 334th District Court, alleging that the utility's negligent acts and omissions proximately caused his injuries. Following trial, a jury found in Wilder's favor and awarded $15,466,597 in damages. CenterPoint appealed, arguing that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 95.003—which limits property owners' negligence liability to independent contractors performing construction or repair work—applied to bar or limit Wilder's recovery.

The Statutory Framework and Dispute

Section 95.003 creates a heightened evidentiary burden for plaintiffs injured while performing construction, repair, renovation, or modification work on improvements to real property. Under the statute, a property owner can be liable only if the owner had "actual knowledge" of the danger or condition that caused the injury—a more demanding standard than common-law premises liability, which permits recovery when an owner "knew or reasonably should have known" of the risk.

The central issues on appeal were whether CenterPoint's public utility easement constituted "real property" under the statute, whether the concrete transmission pole was an "improvement to real property," and whether CenterPoint had actual knowledge of the danger that caused Wilder's fall.

The Court's Analysis

The Court of Appeals held that the statute applied and that CenterPoint was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. First, the court determined that the public utility easement on which the pole was located constituted "real property" for purposes of Section 95.003. The court concluded that easements are interests in real property and fall within the statute's scope.

Second, the court held that the concrete transmission pole was an "improvement to real property." The court rejected Wilder's argument that the pole was merely personal property or equipment rather than a permanent fixture constituting an improvement.

Third, and most critically, the court found that CenterPoint lacked actual knowledge of the danger or condition that resulted in Wilder's injuries. Because the statute requires actual knowledge rather than constructive knowledge (what the owner should have known), and because the evidence did not establish that CenterPoint had such actual knowledge, the court held that CenterPoint could not be held liable under Section 95.003.

Significance

This decision clarifies the application of Section 95.003 to utility companies and their transmission infrastructure located on easements. By holding that utility easements constitute "real property" and that transmission poles are "improvements" to such property, the court extended the statute's protective scope to a significant category of utility operations. The ruling reinforces the heightened actual-knowledge standard that plaintiffs must satisfy when injured while performing work on such improvements, making recovery more difficult than under traditional premises liability principles.