Current law:
Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.2003) (per curiam). The licensor does not have a duty to the licensee if “the licensee has the same knowledge about the dangerous condition as the licensor.” Id.
Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co., --- S.W.3d ----, 2011 WL 6369778, *6 (Tex.App. --- Dallas 2011, no pet. hist. to date).
Original rule: no duty to licensee. Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.,Jul 31, 1963).
Halepeska overruled.
The no-duty doctrine is so unique to Texas that we find no helpful literature in any other jurisdiction. Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W. 2d 368, 377 ( Tex. 1963).
Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 512, 519 (Tex. 1978). Parker says it only deals with invitees and tenants, and not licensees, yet the plaintiff was a social guest (a licensee) hurt on unlit stairs. Id. at 513.
We now expressly abolish the so-called no-duty concept in this case and, as expressed in Farley, “henceforth in the trial of all actions based on negligence . . . .” The reasonableness of an actor's conduct under the circumstances will be determined under principles of contributory negligence. While this case arose prior to the adoption of the comparative negligence statute, in the trial of cases under that statute, one who is contributorily negligent is still entitled to have his negligence compared with that of the other participants in the event.
Id., at 517. The Fifth Circuit followed acknowledged that "no duty" was abolished. Dillon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 161 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1998).
"No duty" doctrine reinstituted. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. 2003).
If the licensee has the same knowledge about the dangerous condition as the licensor, then no duty to the licensee exists. Tennison, 509 S.W.2d [560,] at 562 [Tex. 1974]; ...
Parker was not overruled. The cited Tennison case was about the duty of a licensor and was not a "no duty" decision.
I guess that Wal-Mart just kept going until it found a set of judges who would do what it wanted (and not bother to tell anyone that Halepeska was being reinstituted as law).