Texas Chapter 95 Lawyer: Suing Property Owners for Contractor Injuries in West Texas 

In the industrial heartland of the Permian Basin and the Texas Panhandle, thousands of independent contractors and subcontractors work daily on some of the most dangerous sites in the world. From the drilling rigs of Midland and Odessa to the refineries of El Paso and the wind farms near Amarillo, these workers are the backbone of the Texas economy. However, when a catastrophic injury occurs on these sites, the law often places a massive, specialized barrier between the injured worker and justice: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95. 

The legal community often refers to Chapter 95 as a powerful limitation on premises liability law because it was enacted to protect property owners from lawsuits filed by contractors hired to work on their property. Chapter 95 can feel like a massive corporate shield to injured workers in Lubbock, San Angelo, and Pecos. It allows wealthy energy companies and site operators to avoid responsibility for hazardous conditions they knew about or should have known about.  

At A2X, we are West Texas trial lawyers who refuse to be intimidated by the toughest defenses in premises liability law. We understand that Chapter 95 presents a high hurdle, but it is not insurmountable. Our firm specializes in the aggressive, detailed investigative work required to break through this shield and hold negligent property owners accountable for the life-altering injuries they cause.  

What is Texas Chapter 95? 

Enacted during a wave of tort reform in the mid-1990s, Chapter 95 was intended to shield commercial property owners from liability for the negligence of independent contractors. The logic presented to the legislature was that a property owner who hires a specialized expert to perform a task (like repairing a high-pressure line) should not be responsible if that expert’s own mistakes cause an injury. 

However, in practice, Texas courts have expanded Chapter 95 to cover almost any injury a contractor suffers while working on a "real property improvement." This includes not just the work itself, but also the dangerous conditions of the workplace surrounding the work. 

The Scope of the Law 

Chapter 95 applies to a claim if: 

• The claim is against a property owner (commercial or business). 
• The claim is for personal injury, death, or property damage. 
• The injury arises from the condition or use of an improvement to real property that the contractor is constructing, repairing, renovating, or modifying. 

In the context of the West Texas oilfield, an "improvement" can be a drilling rig, a pump jack, a compressor station, or a saltwater disposal well. If you are a contractor working on one of these "improvements" and get hurt, the property owner is generally immune from a lawsuit unless you can prove two very specific and difficult conditions. 

Overcoming the Immunity: The Two-Prong Exception 

To hold a property owner liable under Section 95.003, the injured worker must prove both of the following elements. If either one is missing, the case is typically dismissed before it ever reaches a jury. 

1. The Control Exception: Manner of Work 

The first requirement is to prove that the property owner exercised or retained control over the manner in which the work was performed. 

Texas law defines control very narrowly. It is not enough to show that the property owner had the right to order the work to start or stop, or the right to inspect progress and receive reports. Those are considered "standard" owner rights. Instead, we must prove the owner (often through a "Company Person" or site supervisor) actually dictated the specific methods, techniques, or safety procedures the contractor was using. 

The West Texas Reality: In cities like Pecos or Midland, oilfield operators frequently use a "Company Person" who sits in a trailer and oversees everything. If that Company Person steps onto the rig floor and tells a contractor to "skip the safety check" or "use a specific tool that is broken" to save time, that is retained control. A2X focuses on uncovering these moments of direct interference that prove the owner was in charge of the dangerous work practices. 

2. The Actual Knowledge Exception 

The second requirement is proving that the property owner had actual knowledge of the danger or condition and failed to adequately warn the contractor. 

This is a much higher bar than the typical "should have known" standard used in most slip-and-fall cases. It is not enough to show that the owner was negligent for failing to inspect the site. We must prove they knew the hazard existed at the moment of the accident. 

Proving Actual Knowledge: We look for paper trails and digital fingerprints. 

• Internal safety audits or "near miss" logs that documented the hazard before your accident. 
• Email communications between site managers discussing the defect. 
• Prior complaints from other contractors about the same dangerous condition. 
• Testimony from former employees who were told to "keep working" despite the risk. 

Why Chapter 95 is Especially Dangerous in the Oilfield 

The complexity of the oil and gas industry in West Texas makes Chapter 95 a favorite tool for corporate defense lawyers. Because most oilfield work is done by a web of subcontractors, the "Property Owner" (often a major energy corporation) will claim they were just a passive observer while the contractors did the dangerous work. Consider these common West Texas scenarios where Chapter 95 is invoked: 

The Drilling Rig Explosion 

If a contractor is injured in an explosion while modifying a well head, the owner will argue the explosion arose from the "condition or use of the improvement" (the well) and that the contractor was hired to work on that very improvement. Unless we can prove the operator knew about the gas leak and controlled the specific drilling technique used, the owner will claim Chapter 95 immunity. 

The Salt Water Disposal Well Failure 

As the tank is part of the improvement to real property, the property owner will try to take advantage of the protections afforded under Chapter 95. A2X will conduct an investigation to determine if the property owner had previously received engineering reports documenting warning signs of structural inadequacy, thus demonstrating a willful disregard for the safety of the loading tank.  

The Compressor Station Fire 

A technician was burned at a compressor station near San Angelo due to a faulty valve. If the technician was working on the compressor station and had been directed to perform repairs, then Chapter 95 is applicable. The purpose of our investigation will be to find evidence that the site manager specifically instructed the technician to bypass the safety sensor in order to keep the natural gas flowing, establishing the control prong.  

A2X Strategy: How We Overcome Chapter 95 

At A2X, we do not wait for the property owner to file a motion to dismiss based on Chapter 95. We built the case to defeat it from day one. Our strategy involves a multi-front attack on the corporate defense. 

Technical Discovery and the "Company Person" 

We know how West Texas worksites operate. We aggressively depose the "Company Person" and other site supervisors. We don't just ask if they "oversaw" the work; we drill down into their daily interactions with the contractors. Did they provide the tools? Did they mandate the specific PPE? Did they override the contractor’s own safety protocols? 

Expert Engineering and Safety Testimony 

Proving the "manner of work" and "actual knowledge" often requires specialized experts. A2X utilizes accident reconstructionist, industrial safety engineers, and petroleum experts to explain to a jury why the owner’s interference made the site unreasonably dangerous. 

The "Same Improvement" Challenge 

Recent Texas Supreme Court rulings (such as Los Compadres Pescadores) have clarified that Chapter 95 applies only if the injury arises from the same improvement for which the contractor was hired. 

• If you were hired to fix a pump jack but were injured by a nearby energized power line that was not part of your work, Chapter 95 might not apply. 
• A2X meticulously analyzes the scope of your contract to argue that the hazard was a general "premises defect" rather than a condition of the specific improvement you were working on. 

Recoverable Damages for Injured Contractors 

When A2X successfully overcomes a Chapter 95 defense, it opens the door to the full range of damages available under Texas law. Because we are bypassing the limitations of workers' compensation, we can seek: 

• Full Economic Loss: This includes every dollar of medical debt, future surgical costs, and the total loss of your career’s earning potential in the high-paying oilfield sector. 
• Non-Economic Loss: This covers the "human cost" of the injury, the physical pain, the mental anguish of a permanent disability, and the loss of your ability to enjoy life with your family in Lubbock or Amarillo. 
• Punitive Damages: If we can prove the owner’s actual knowledge and control rose to the level of "gross negligence," we may seek punitive damages to punish the corporation and prevent future tragedies on West Texas worksites. 

Contact Our West Texas Trial Lawyers at A2X 

If you are an independent contractor or subcontractor who has been injured on a commercial or industrial site in West Texas, the clock is ticking. Corporate legal teams in Midland and El Paso are already working to build their Chapter 95 defense. They will use every resource to prove they didn't "control" your work and didn't "know" about the danger. 



You need a firm that knows how to fight back. At A2X, we have the experience, resources, and deep West Texas knowledge to take on energy giants and their most aggressive legal defenses. We believe no property owner is above the law, and no corporate shield should protect a company that puts profits over human safety.