Negligent Undertaking: A Critical Case Heads to the Texas Supreme Court

Negligent undertaking is a lesser-known but significant theory of liability within the realm of premises liability law. It applies when a party takes on a duty to perform a task related to another’s safety and fails to execute that task in a reasonable manner, leading to harm. In recent years, this legal theory has come under increased scrutiny, particularly in the case of Barron v. United States, a Texas case decided by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case involves the tragic drowning of a civilian contractor, Anthony Barron, on a U.S. Army base during a storm. His family sued the U.S. government, alleging that Army personnel failed to properly inspect and secure a gate at a low-water crossing, leading to Barron’s death. The central question before the courts is whether negligent undertaking can serve as a valid claim in Texas when natural elements, such as floodwaters, are involved. 

Texas Liability and the Role of Natural Accumulation

In the initial proceedings, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. government. The court ruled that the surviving family of Anthony Barron could not recover under either a general negligence or premises liability claim. The decision was based on the “natural accumulation doctrine,” which shields property owners from liability for natural conditions such as floodwaters, snow, or ice unless they take specific actions to create or worsen a hazard.

Additionally, the district court dismissed the Barrons’ negligent undertaking claim, ruling that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded the claim under Texas law. The court held that even if the claim had been properly pleaded, it would still fail as a matter of law. The court reasoned that under Texas law, the government’s alleged failure to properly secure the gate at the low-water crossing did not rise to the level required to support a negligent undertaking claim, particularly when the natural accumulation doctrine was applied.

Fifth Circuit’s Reversal on Negligent Undertaking Claim

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling on the negligent undertaking claim. The appellate court concluded that the Barrons had sufficiently pleaded negligent undertaking and that the district court was wrong to dismiss the claim as a matter of law. 

The Fifth Circuit noted that while the natural accumulation doctrine generally shields property owners from liability for natural hazards, Texas law has recognized the possibility of a negligent undertaking claim when a party takes affirmative actions related to those natural conditions. In this case, the officers’ responsibility for inspecting and securing the gates at low-water crossings could be seen as such an affirmative action, making the negligent undertaking claim viable under Texas law. 

In addition to reversing the claim, the Fifth Circuit is sending the case to the Texas Supreme Court to consider whether negligent undertaking claims can survive in the context of natural conditions like floodwaters. 

The court’s forthcoming decision will be critical in clarifying liability for property owners and the government when it comes to natural hazards and safety measures. If the Texas Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, it could expand the scope of negligent undertaking and impose greater duties on landowners who take actions related to natural conditions. This case will not only affect the outcome for the Barron family but also shape the future of premises liability law in Texas.

Please note this article is for informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal advice.

mikal watts author box

Mikal Watts

Written on behalf of Mikal Watts, and reviewed by Watts Law Firm LLP

Mikal C. Watts is Board-Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is a Martindale-Hubbel AV Rated Lawyer.