Terminology: Law suits by customers, patrons | suits by former employees, managers | contract disputes | payment disputes | regulatory authorities | labor and employment disputes | workplace injury and worker's compensation | nonsubscribers | leases for commercial space and lease disputes | premises defects | slip fall and trip cases | personal injury lawsuits and liability | crime on the premises and on-site security | food safety | food poisoning claims | business law | contractors | vendors and bankers | commercial working capital loans debt | business line of credit and promissory note suits | personal guaranty of loans | sworn account suits by venders, suppliers | Nov. 10, 2009 News: Ralph Biancanala v. Tilman Fertitta Shareholder Derivative Suit File to Thwart Landry's Buyout No Liability for Employer in Murder of Employee on Duty at Restaurant Barton v. Whataburger, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] July 31, 2008) (Bland) (workplace safety, murder not forseeable, no employer liability) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland 01-06-01121-CV Rose Barton, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Martin Dean v. Whataburger, Inc. Appeal from 157th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ronald [Randall] L. Wilson This negligence case arises from the aggravated robbery of a Whataburger restaurant and the resulting murder of one of its employees on duty during the robbery. Rose Barton, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Christopher Dean, the Whataburger employee who was murdered, appeals the trial court’s summary judgment entered in favor of Whataburger, Inc. Barton contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on her claim that Whataburger was negligent in (1) hiring Gregory Love to manage its restaurant, as he conspired to commit the robbery that led to the murder; (2) failing to provide a safe workplace for Dean; and (3) failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent the robbery. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the aggravated robbery leading to murder was not foreseeable as a matter of law. Shooting in front of restaurant not foreseeable Pouncy Pittman v. Pappas Restaurants (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] July 31, 2008)(Hanks) (shooting in front of restaurant, not forseeable, no liability, motion for continuance MFC, admission of evidence) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Hanks Before Justices Nuchia, Alcala and Hanks 01-07-00575-CV Leah Pouncy Pittman, Individually and on behalf of the heirs at law of the Estate of Delearette Montrail Pittman v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen Appeal from 190th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod Appellant, Leah Pouncy-Pittman, individually and on behalf of the heirs of the estate of Delearette Montrail Pittman, (“Pouncy-Pittman”) appeals the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment against her, dismissing her wrongful death action against Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen (“Pappadeaux”). Pouncy- Pittman alleges the trial court erred because (1) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment; (2) the trial court failed to grant her motion to continue the summary judgment hearing; and (3) the trial court failed to sustain her objections to an affidavit by Pappadeaux’s expert witness. We affirm. On October 3, 2004, Delearette Montrail Pittman (“Pittman”) visited a Pappadeaux Restaurant in Houston, Texas. At some point, Pittman stepped outside to use his cell phone. While outside, Pittman was seen to be arguing with an unknown person and witnesses then heard a gunshot. An off-duty Houston Police Department Officer working as a security guard for Pappadeaux found Pittman, shot in the chest, outside the restaurant. Pittman died that evening at a local hospital. * * * Dr. Moore’s opinion that the murder of Pittman was not foreseeable to Pappadeaux—as supported by the facts he recited from the unchallenged police reports, news reports and crime statistics—was uncontroverted. We recognize that, because the question of duty is a question of law for the court, an expert cannot properly opine regarding the existence of a duty. See, e.g., Drennan v. Cmty. Health Inv. Corp., 905 S.W.2d 811, 824 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, writ denied). Further, in premises liability cases, expert testimony alone is insufficient to raise a fact issue on foreseeability. Allright San Antonio Parking Inc. v. Kendrick, 981 S.W.2d 250, 255 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). However, even when faced with a no-evidence summary judgment motion against her, Pouncy-Pittman failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence showing that Pappadeaux had a duty under Timberwalk to Pittman and that it breached that duty. Pappadeaux, on the other hand, produced an affidavit that contained unchallenged factual assertions supporting a conclusion that it did not owe a duty to Pittman. Accordingly, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in Pappadeaux’s favor. We overrule Pouncy-Pittman’s first point of error. Evans v. MIPTT, LLC dba East Coast Buffet (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun 14, 2007) (food poisoning claim) Loredana Enterprises, Inc. v. Rewards Network Services, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 18, 2007)(Seymore) (biz litigation, BoC, personal guaranty, joint and several liability, admission of evidence, business records) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Seymore Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore 14-07-00118-CV Loredana Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Babbo Bruno and Stefano Bertolotti v. Rewards Network Services, Inc., f/k/a Idine Restaurant Group, Inc. Appeal from 280th District Court of Harris County (Hon. Tony Lindsay) Appellee, Rewards Network Services, Inc. ("Rewards") sued appellants, Loredana Enterprise, Inc. ("Loredana") and Stefano Bertolotti, alleging breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the court found for Rewards and entered judgment for $29,520.24 plus pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In three issues, appellants challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's judgment. Court of appeals affirms. Ton's Remodeling v. Tot Hoi Fund d/b/a Fung's Kitchen (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 21, 2007) (Hanks)(construction dispute, commercial, BoC, breach of contract, sworn account) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT IN PART, REVERSE TC JUDGMENT IN PART, AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Hanks Before Justices Nuchia, Hanks and Bland 01-05-01077-CV Ton's Remodeling v. Tot Hoi Fund d/b/a Fung's Kitchen Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 2 of Harris County (Hon. Gary Michael Block) Boondoggles Corp. v. Yancey (Tex.App.– Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 3, 2006)(by Radack) [employment law, employment contract, breach of contract, BoC, restaurant manager, modification of contract, contract construction, ambiguous contract, bonus pay dispute, calculation of damages, remittitur, res judicata, no identity of claims, parties, different capacities, attorney fees, disclosure of witnesses, discovery not filed, CoD) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Taft and Nuchia 01-05-00185-CV Boondoggles Corporation v. Johnathan Yancey Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County (Hon. Reece Rondon) (“Having concluded that the trial court properly found that Boondoggles never paid Yancey the bonus required by his contract of employment and that Yancey demanded payment before filing this action, the trial court correctly ruled, in conclusion of law seven, that Yancey’’s right to collect was due.”) Eubanks v. Pappas Restaurants (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 7, 2006)(Nuchia)(substitute opinion on rehearing)[premises liability, slip and fall, parking lot] AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia Before Justices Nuchia, Jennings and Keyes 01-05-00833-CV Leonard Eubanks v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc., and Pappas Partners, L.P. Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County Appellant, Leonard Eubanks, filed a premises-liability suit against appellees, Pappas Restaurants, Inc. and Pappas Partners, L.P., after he slipped and fell in a restaurant parking lot owned by them. The trial court granted appellees' first amended motion for summary judgment, (1) and appellant appeals, contending that appellees failed to establish as a matter of law that the condition resulting in appellant's injury did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. We affirm. |
Texas Food & Restaurant Litigation Case Law from Texas Courts of Appeals Houston Opinions |