Also see --> Other Premises Liability Law Suits Including Slip, Trip & Fall Cases Killing at Carwash Not Foreseeable - No Liability Diaz v. DTC West Tidwell Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009)(Sullivan) (deadly shooting at carwash, no premises liability, killing not forseeable) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Sullivan Before Justices Seymore, Brown and Sullivan 14-08-00402-CV Pedro Santiago Diaz, Jerry Diaz, as surviving child of Pedro Santiago Diaz, Yvette Mercado, as surviving child of Pedro Santiago Diaz, and as adminstrator of the Estate of Pedro Diaz and MIchelle Diaz, as surviving child of Pedro Santiago Diaz v. DTC West Tidwell Corporation, DBA U.S. Auto Wash Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Reese Rondon Employer found not liable in murder of employee in course of robbery at place of employment Barton v. Whataburger, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] July 31, 2008) (Bland) (workplace safety, murder not forseeable, no employer liability) AFFIRM TRIAL COURT 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 Court of Appeals holds that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the diabolic conduct of others—men who committed aggravated robbery and murder—was a superseding cause of Dean’s death that was not reasonably foreseeable to Whataburger. The Court therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. We conclude Pouncy-Pittman failed to bring forth even a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on her challenged negligence claim against Pappadeaux. For example, she did not present any evidence demonstrating that the crime was or should have been foreseeable to Pappadeaux under Timberwalk. None of documents she submitted contain information regarding crime statistics for the surrounding area, nor do they discuss “specific previous crimes on or near the premises.” Nor was Pouncy-Pittman’s conclusory allegation that the area was “widely known” to be dangerous and that “numerous violent crimes” had occurred in the general area sufficient to survive a no-evidence summary judgment motion. Conclusory or speculative opinion testimony does not tend to make the existence of a material fact “more or less probable” and is neither relevant nor competent. Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum. Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 401). A trial court presented with purported evidence that is merely conclusory or speculative on its face need not go beyond the face of the record to test its reliability. Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 233. Accordingly, 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. 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 Bergman v. Minnie Martin Daugherty (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 31, 2007)(Yates)(premises liability, theft) Opinion by Justice Brock Yates Before Justices Brock Yates, Anderson and Hudson 14-05-01268-CV Pamela K. Bergman v. Minnie Martin Daugherty Appeal from 280th District Court of Harris County (Judge Tony Lindsay) - Affirmed Thomas v. CNC Investments, L.L.P (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 31, 2007)(Taft) (premises liability, assault, criminal) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Taft Before Justices Taft, Jennings and Alcala 01-05-00838-CV Craig Thomas, Karen Thomas, Kaitlin Thomas and Caroline Thomas v. CNC Investments, L.L.P.--Appeal from 190th District Court of Harris County (Judge Jennifer Elrod) . |
| Premises Liability Cases Based on Crimes from Houston Courts of Appeals Houston Opinions |
