Karen Powell v. Centerpoint Energy Arkla and Crumley Company, Inc.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE  DIVISION II  CA07­298  December 19, 2007  KAREN POWELL  APPELLANT  APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY  CIRCUIT COURT  [CV­04­486]  V. CENTERPOINT ENERGY ARKLA and  CRUMLEY COMPANY, INC.  APPELLEES  HON. JOHN S. PATTERSON,  CIRCUIT JUDGE  AFFIRMED  This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by appellant Karen Powell after she sustained  injuries  when  she  fell  into  a  hole  while  walking in  a  grassy  area  owned  by  Centerpoint  Energy. On appeal, Powell argues that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment  in favor of Centerpoint and Crumley and asks us to reinstate her lawsuit. We decline to do  so.  On October 7, 2003, Powell was walking her grandson across a utility easement to  obtain a closer view of a train the two were watching. Before reaching their destination,  Powell stepped into a hole and suffered various injuries. In her deposition, Powell admitted  that she did not seek or secure permission to enter onto the easement. She filed suit against  Centerpoint and the Crumley Company (who she claimed was doing work on the property),  alleging that Centerpoint had directed that the hole be dug for utility­maintenance purposes and that the condition of the hole breached Centerpoint’s “duty to maintain the area in a safe  condition.”  After hearing from the parties, the trial court concluded that undisputed facts showed  that Powell was a trespasser, and as such Centerpoint could only be liable if it breached the  duty owed a trespasser. The court concluded that the facts demonstrated no such breach and  granted  summary  judgment  in  Centerpoint/Crumley’s  favor.  It  is  from this  decision  that  Powell appeals.  A trial court should only grant summary judgment when it is clear that there are no  genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entitled to judgment  as a matter of law. Castaneda v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 357 Ark. 345, 166 S.W.3d 556  (2004).  Once  the  moving  party  has  established  a  prima  facie  entitlement  to  summary  judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of  a material issue of fact. Id. On review, we determine if summary judgment was appropriate  based  on  whether  the  evidentiary  items  presented  by  the  moving  party  in  support  of  its  motion leave a material fact unanswered, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable  to the party resisting summary judgment. Id.  Here, there is no doubt—based on Powell’s own testimony—that she was a trespasser.  1  As a matter of law, an owner or occupier  owes a trespasser no duty until her presence on 1  An easement is a property right and is entitled to all the constitutional safeguards  afforded to other property rights. Ark. State Highway Comm’n. v. Ark. Power & Light Co.,  231 Ark. 307, 330 S.W.2d 77 (1959).  2  the premises is known; then the occupant owes the trespasser only a duty not to cause her  injury by willful or wanton conduct. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Davis, 247 Ark. 381, 445 S.W.2d  505 (1969). When asked in her deposition if the owners of the easement had any knowledge  of her presence on the property, she responded: “I don’t think so.” This testimony alone  established that Powell was an “unknown” trespasser, and as such no duty was owed.  Furthermore, assuming for purposes of argument that her presence was known, there  was  no  evidence  presented  to  establish  any  willful  or  wanton  conduct  on  the  part  of  Centerpoint. Therefore, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Centerpoint’s favor  must stand.  Affirmed.  MARSHALL  and MILLER, JJ., agree. 3 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.