United Scaffolding, Inc., Petitioner v. James Levine, Respondent

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's claim against United Scaffolding sounded in premises liability, and because the jury was submitted only a general‑negligence question, the verdict could not support recovery, resulting in a take‑nothing judgment for United Scaffolding. The Court also affirmed that United Scaffolding properly preserved its error argument. Justice Boyd dissented, arguing that the ordinary‑negligence theory was proper and that the majority misapplied the law.