Fred H. Holmes, Jr. sued Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. to recover personal-injury damages caused when the catwalk on a billboard owned by Clear Channel collapsed from underneath Holmes while he was preparing to replace a poster on the billboard. Based on the language of a waiver in a contract between Holmes and Clear Channel’s predecessor, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Clear Channel, which judgment Holmes appeals. We agree with the trial court and affirm. This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. See Holmes v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 1 “Holmes I “. As recounted in Holmes I , the evidence in this case as construed in favor of Holmes shows the following: Holmes was an experienced bill-poster who signed an independent contractor agreement with Eller Media, Inc. In September 2001, Holmes prepared to replace the poster on one of two side-by-side billboards owned by Clear Channel, which bought Eller Media in 2001. He set his ladder through the catwalk of the right sign and climbed up, then stepped over onto the catwalk of the left sign where he was going to work. He pulled the ladder up, hooked it over the top post of the left sign, and reached for the lanyard on his safety harness to hook it to the ladder. A weld on a bracket holding the catwalk broke before he could attach the safety line, and Holmes fell 20 feet, landing in a crouching position and breaking his wrist. Holmes sued Clear Channel for damages, contending that the company breached its duty to keep its premises and approaches safe, that the billboard was negligently constructed and maintained, and that the collapse of the catwalk caused his wrist to break. Clear Channel answered, denying liability, and then amended its answer to assert the defense of waiver. After the parties conducted discovery, Clear Channel moved for summary judgment, contending that Holmes waived his right to recover against the company for any damages he incurred while he was posting bills, based on the contract he signed with its predecessor. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the contract barred Holmes’s claim for damages against Clear Channel. Id. at 474-475.
Holmes I held that Clear Channel stood in the place of its predecessor Eller and that the February 2001 contract between Eller and Holmes governed the parties’ rights in this action. Id. at 475-476 1. Noting that under that contract Holmes agreed to obtain general commercial liability insurance and other insurance policies, Holmes I then focused on the clause entitled “Hold Harmless/Indemnification,” in which Holmes in the first paragraph agreed to indemnify Clear Channel against all claims asserted against Clear Channel for real or personal property damage or personal injury related to Holmes’s work. Id. at 476-477 2. The third paragraph of this clause provided: Contractor hereby waives all of its rights for any recovery against Clear Channel, including its employees, agents or tenants, for any damages incurred by Contractor in providing the services hereunder, provided that such waiver of recovery does not invalidate the insurance coverage. Id.
