Table of Contents
Premises liability covers far more than a fall in a store aisle. Under Texas law, an owner's responsibility depends on why you were on the property, what the owner knew, and whether the hazard was hidden. The Texas Chongo Personal Injury Lawyers handle premises claims throughout Dallas and the surrounding metroplex, from apartment assaults to construction site injuries.
Our founding attorney, David Sanchez, is board-certified in personal injury trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has tried more than 100 jury trials. If an unsafe property condition hurt you, a Dallas premises liability lawyer from our firm can review what happened. Call (972) 529-3476 for a free case evaluation.
Property owners and their insurers defend these claims hard, because liability usually turns on records only the owner controls. Our founding attorney has built a career on that fight.
Our record includes:
Our office is located at 220 O'Connor Ridge Blvd in Irving, minutes from Dallas, and we take premises cases on a contingency-fee basis. Ask about the exact fee terms during your case evaluation.
A premises liability claim arises when an unsafe condition on someone else's property causes injury. Falls are the most familiar version. They are far from the only one.
Claims we handle include:
Each category carries its own duty analysis. A dog-bite case and a negligent-security case share a courthouse and almost nothing else.
Texas does not impose a duty on every person who walks onto property. Your legal classification at the time of injury sets the standard the owner must meet.
An invitee enters for the mutual benefit of both parties, such as a customer in a store or a tenant in a leased apartment. Invitees receive the highest duty: The owner must inspect for hazards and address dangers it knew about or should have discovered.
A licensee enters with permission but for their own purposes, such as a social guest. Owners owe licensees a narrower duty, generally limited to hazards the owner actually knows about.
Trespassers receive the least protection. Under Section 75.007 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, an owner, lessee, or occupant owes no duty of care to a trespasser. The single exception is a duty to refrain from injuring that person wilfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence.
Under Section 75.007, Texas recognizes the attractive nuisance doctrine. Property owners can be held liable for injuries to trespassing children caused by artificial conditions (such as unfenced pools, abandoned machinery, or exposed construction equipment) if the owner knew children were likely to trespass, knew the condition posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury, and failed to exercise reasonable care to protect them.
Property owners raise this defense constantly, and Texas law supports them. In Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., the Supreme Court of Texas held that a landowner generally has no duty to warn of hazards that are open and obvious or known to the invitee.
However, two vital exceptions protect injured individuals:
Whether a condition was truly "open and obvious" is a factual question. Lighting levels, line-of-sight obstructions, warning signage, floor color, and crowded conditions all play a crucial role in defeating this defense.
When a tenant or customer is attacked, the property owner rarely caused the harm. Liability instead turns on whether the owner should have seen the risk coming and did too little about it.
In Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed when a property owner must guard against crime. A person who controls premises must use ordinary care to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties if he knows or has reason to know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm.
Courts weigh several factors together:
No single factor controls the outcome. Our attorneys pull police call histories, prior incident reports, and management correspondence to build that record.
Residential landlords have statutory duties in addition to common-law ones. Section 92.153 of the Texas Property Code requires a landlord to equip a dwelling with security devices without the tenant having to request them, and at the landlord's expense.
Required devices include:
A missing or broken device is documentary evidence, not a matter of opinion. That distinction gives these claims traction that a general complaint about inadequate security never gets.
Some premises injuries run under separate statutes that change who can be held responsible.
Section 95.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code shields a property owner from liability to a contractor, subcontractor, or their employees who construct, repair, renovate, or modify an improvement to real property. The shield drops only when both conditions are met.
The owner must have exercised or retained some control over how the work was performed, beyond ordering it to start or stop or inspecting progress. The owner must also have known of the danger and failed to warn adequately.
That two-part test is why control documents matter so much. Contracts, safety manuals, daily logs, and site meeting notes frequently decide these cases.
A bar, restaurant, or venue can face liability under Section 2.02 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. Liability attaches when it was apparent to the provider that the person served was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others. The intoxication must also have proximately caused the harm.
The Texas Tort Claims Act instead governs claims against a city, county, or school district. For a premises defect, Section 101.022 limits a governmental unit to the duty a private person owes a licensee, and the notice deadlines are far shorter than the general filing deadline.
Texas requires specific proof, and the injured person bears the burden. In H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, decided April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas restated the elements. An injured person must prove actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition, a condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm, failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, and proximate cause.
Shared fault then adjusts what remains. Under Section 33.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a person may not recover damages if their percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent. Section 33.012 reduces the remaining award by the percentage assigned.
Timing controls everything else. Section 16.003 requires suit for personal injury not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues. Surveillance video and incident records, however, are often gone within weeks, so waiting costs evidence long before it costs the claim.
Any injury caused by an unsafe condition on property someone else controls. That includes falls, assaults tied to inadequate security, dog bites, pool incidents, fires, falling objects, and elevator failures. The common thread is a property condition, not a defective product or a vehicle collision.
Possibly, depending on foreseeability. Prior crimes on or near the property, how recent and similar they were, and how much attention they drew all shape whether the complex owed a duty to add security measures. Broken locks, disabled gates, and dead cameras strengthen the case considerably.
Often both, and sometimes only one. Responsibility follows control over the area where the injury happened. Lease terms, maintenance agreements, and management contracts determine who is responsible for inspection and repair, which is why we request those documents early.
Texas law gives trespassers little protection. An owner must refrain only from wilfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence injuring a trespasser. Whether you actually qualified as a trespasser is still worth examining, because implied permission and customary use can change that classification.
Children are treated differently. Texas recognizes liability for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition when the owner knew children were likely to be drawn to the location and failed to take reasonable care. Common examples include unfenced pools, abandoned equipment, and stacked construction materials.
Generally, two years from the date the cause of action accrues. Claims against a governmental unit are subject to a much shorter notice clock. Because those deadlines differ, confirm which one applies to your situation rather than assuming you have time.
Premises cases are won on records that property owners have every incentive to let expire. Moving early protects the evidence that decides them.
The Texas Chongo Personal Injury Lawyers investigate Dallas premises liability claims from our Irving office, and attorney David Sanchez is board certified in personal injury trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Tell us where you were hurt, who controlled the property, and what treatment you have received so far.
Case evaluations are free, and we handle these claims on a contingency fee basis in English and Spanish. Call (972) 529-3476 to speak with a Dallas premises liability lawyer about your options under Texas law.
© 2026 Texas Chongo Personal Injury Lawyer - All Rights Reserved.
