Bulah Marie Garrett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Lyndell Ray Garrett, Deceased; Lisa Garrett; And Shelly Garrett v. Wal-Mart Stores, LLC D/B/A Wal-Mart Supercenter 561 and Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Headline: Appellate Court Affirms Wal-Mart's Dismissal But Reverses Greyhound's, Allowing Negligence Claim for Disabled Passenger's Death to Proceed Against Bus Company
Case Summary
This case involves a lawsuit filed by the family of Lyndell Ray Garrett against Wal-Mart Stores, LLC and Greyhound Lines, Inc. The lawsuit stemmed from an incident where Mr. Garrett, a disabled man, was left at a Wal-Mart store by a Greyhound bus driver and subsequently died after attempting to cross a highway. The family alleged negligence against both Wal-Mart and Greyhound. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, finding that Wal-Mart did not owe a duty of care to Mr. Garrett under the circumstances, and that even if it did, its actions were not the proximate cause of his death. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Greyhound, concluding that Greyhound did not owe a duty to Mr. Garrett after he voluntarily disembarked the bus at an unscheduled stop and that its actions were not the proximate cause of his death. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, agreeing that Wal-Mart did not owe a legal duty to Mr. Garrett. The court reasoned that Wal-Mart did not have a special relationship with Mr. Garrett that would create such a duty, nor did it voluntarily assume a duty. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Greyhound. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Greyhound owed a duty to Mr. Garrett, particularly concerning its policies and procedures for handling disabled passengers and unscheduled stops. The court also found that a jury should determine whether Greyhound's actions, or inactions, were a proximate cause of Mr. Garrett's death. Therefore, the case against Greyhound will proceed to trial.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- A premises owner (Wal-Mart) generally does not owe a duty to protect an invitee from the criminal acts of third parties or from dangers that are open and obvious, unless the owner has actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition or a special relationship exists.
- A common carrier (Greyhound) owes a duty of care to its passengers, which may extend to ensuring their safety, especially for disabled passengers, even at unscheduled stops, depending on the specific circumstances and the carrier's policies.
- Proximate cause involves both cause-in-fact and foreseeability; cause-in-fact means the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct, and foreseeability means a person of ordinary intelligence would have anticipated the danger created by the negligent act.
Entities and Participants
Parties
- Bulah Marie Garrett (party)
- Lyndell Ray Garrett (party)
- Lisa Garrett (party)
- Shelly Garrett (party)
- Wal-Mart Stores, LLC D/B/A Wal-Mart Supercenter 561 (company)
- Greyhound Lines, Inc. (company)
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What was this case about?
This case was about the alleged negligence of Wal-Mart and Greyhound Lines, Inc. that led to the death of Lyndell Ray Garrett, a disabled passenger who was left at a Wal-Mart by a Greyhound bus driver and later died attempting to cross a highway.
Q: Why did the court rule in favor of Wal-Mart?
The court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart because it found that Wal-Mart did not owe a legal duty of care to Mr. Garrett under the circumstances, as there was no special relationship and Wal-Mart did not voluntarily assume such a duty. Furthermore, Wal-Mart's actions were not considered the proximate cause of his death.
Q: Why did the court reverse the ruling for Greyhound?
The court reversed the ruling for Greyhound because it found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Greyhound owed a duty to Mr. Garrett, especially considering its status as a common carrier and its policies for disabled passengers and unscheduled stops. The court also determined that a jury should decide if Greyhound's actions were a proximate cause of his death.
Q: What is a 'duty of care' in this context?
A 'duty of care' refers to a legal obligation imposed on an individual or company to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. In this case, the court examined whether Wal-Mart and Greyhound had such an obligation to Mr. Garrett.
Q: What is 'proximate cause'?
'Proximate cause' is a legal concept that links an action to an injury. It requires both 'cause-in-fact' (the injury wouldn't have happened without the action) and 'foreseeability' (a reasonable person would have anticipated the danger created by the action).
Case Details
| Case Name | Bulah Marie Garrett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Lyndell Ray Garrett, Deceased; Lisa Garrett; And Shelly Garrett v. Wal-Mart Stores, LLC D/B/A Wal-Mart Supercenter 561 and Greyhound Lines, Inc. |
| Court | texapp |
| Date Filed | 2026-03-26 |
| Docket Number | 11-24-00058-CV |
| Outcome | Mixed Outcome |
| Impact Score | 75 / 100 |
| Legal Topics | negligence, duty of care, proximate cause, summary judgment, premises liability, common carrier liability, disabled persons rights |
| Jurisdiction | tx |
About This Analysis
This AI-generated analysis of Bulah Marie Garrett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Lyndell Ray Garrett, Deceased; Lisa Garrett; And Shelly Garrett v. Wal-Mart Stores, LLC D/B/A Wal-Mart Supercenter 561 and Greyhound Lines, Inc. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.