angie-hanson-and-joe-hanson-v-greystar-development-construction-lp ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                        COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 2-09-397-CV
    ANGIE HANSON AND JOE HANSON                       APPELLANTS
    V.
    GREYSTAR DEVELOPMENT &                             APPELLEES
    CONSTRUCTION, LP; HOUSTON
    STAFFORD ELECTRICAL
    CONTRACTORS; MULTI BUILDING
    INCORPORATED; W LA VISTA
    RIDGE V LP; W LA VISTA RIDGE
    GP V LLC; COTTONW OOD REAL
    ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
    LARAMAR MANAGEMENT
    SERVICES LLC; GABLES RESIDENTIAL
    SERVICES INC.; W ALTON STREET
    CAPITOL, LLC; W LA APARTMENT
    HOLDINGS V, LP; AND W LA VISTA RIDGE
    GP CAPITAL V, LLC
    ------------
    FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
    ------------
    OPINION
    ------------
    I. INTRODUCTION
    This is a summary judgment appeal.          The trial court granted summary
    judgments for Appellees Greystar Development & Construction, LP; Houston
    Stafford Electrical Contractors; Multi Building Incorporated; W LA Vista Ridge V LP;
    W LA Vista Ridge GP V LLC; Cottonwood Real Estate Limited Partnership; Laramar
    Management Services LLC; Gables Residential Services Inc.; W alton Street Capitol,
    LLC; W LA Apartment Holdings V, LP; and W LA Vista Ridge GP Capital V, LLC.
    Appellants Angie Hanson and Joe Hanson perfected this appeal.
    II. P ROCEDURAL AND F ACTUAL B ACKGROUND
    Angie and Joe Hanson were tenants in apartment 822 of The Villas of Vista
    Ridge in Lewisville. A stairway connecting apartment 822 to its attached garage was
    not built in accordance with the architect’s plans and did not comply with the City of
    Lewisville’s building code, and a prior tenant of apartment 822 had filed a written
    complaint that the stairway was dirty, wet, and made of untreated wood. Mrs.
    Hanson fell down the stairs and suffered life-threatening injuries. She is unable to
    remember how, why, or where in the stairwell she fell. Neither of the Hansons know
    whether the light in the stairwell was on or off when Mrs. Hanson fell. The Hansons
    subsequently sued Appellees, who are the contractors and subcontractors
    responsible for building The Villas of Vista Ridge and the current and former property
    managers of The Villas.
    III. S UMMARY J UDGMENT S TANDARDS OF R EVIEW
    2
    A no-evidence motion for summary judgment is essentially a pretrial directed
    verdict, and we apply the same legal sufficiency standard of review. King Ranch, Inc.
    v. Chapman, 118 S.W .3d 742, 750 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied, 
    541 U.S. 1030
    (2004).
    The movant must specifically state the elements as to which there is no evidence.
    Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).    The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce
    summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding each
    element challenged in the motion. W e view the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the nonmovant and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences in determining
    whether the nonmovant has produced evidence raising a genuine issue of material
    fact. King Ranch, 118 S.W .3d at 751.
    In pursuing a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant bears the
    burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled
    to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). W e review the motion and
    the evidence de novo, taking as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant,
    indulging every reasonable inference, and resolving any doubts in the nonmovant’s
    favor. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). W hen,
    as here, the trial court does not specify the grounds on which the judgment is based,
    we will affirm the judgment if it is correct on any legal theory expressly placed at
    issue and supported by the evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (stating that issues
    must be “expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response”);
    Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W .3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam) (holding
    3
    that when the grounds for the ruling are not specified, we affirm “if any of the
    theories advanced are meritorious”).
    IV. N O E VIDENCE OF P ROXIMATE C AUSE OR
    THE   ABSENCE OF P ROXIMATE C AUSE C ONCLUSIVELY E STABLISHED
    Each Appellee filed either a traditional or a no-evidence motion for summary
    judgment on the issue of causation. Viewing the summary judgment record in the
    light most favorable to the Hansons, it establishes that Mrs. Hanson has no
    recollection of how she fell, that neither Joe nor anyone else saw her fall, and that
    no one knows whether the lights in the stairwell were turned on when she fell.
    As summary judgment evidence, the Hansons filed an expert report from Jim
    Sealy, an architect. Mr. Sealy inspected the stairway in question and determined
    that variances in the risers exceeded those allowed by the building code. He also
    determined that the stairway’s illumination did not comply with the 1997 Uniform
    Building Code or the 2000 International Building Code. Mr. Sealy’s report indicates
    that in forming his opinions he relied upon a book called The Staircase written by Dr.
    Templer which explains that most stairway falls occur either on the first three steps
    on the stairway or on the last three steps. 1 Mr. Sealy’s report indicates that the first
    1
     The portions of The Staircase attached to Mr. Sealy’s report also list user
    behavior factors known to cause stair falls including hurrying, running, having a slow
    gait, not paying attention, being distracted, and carrying things. Thus, this source
    recognizes that in addition to any stair defects these user behaviors may cause stair
    falls.
    4
    three stairs on the stairway in question are of irregular height, but it does not mention
    the last three stairs. Mr. Sealy concluded,
    Based on my visual inspection of the stairway in question and
    based upon [my] education, training and experience, as an architect, a
    designer of stairways and as a writer and interpreter of building codes
    and standards, it is my opinion that Mrs. Joe Hanson lost her balance
    and fell on the garage stairway of her apartment at the Villas at Vista
    Rose [sic] in Lewisville, Texas. It is also my opinion that Mrs. Hanson
    lost her balance and fell because of the inadequate lighting and
    irregular dimensions of the stairway upon which she was walking and
    those inadequacies and irregularities contributed to Mrs. Hanson
    overstepping a tread and that ultimately resulted in her loss of balance
    and her fall.
    ....
    Further, it is my opinion that had the stairway been properly
    illuminated and had the risers (steps) been regular in their dimension
    Mrs. Hanson would not have lost her balance and she would not have
    fallen and been injured.
    As additional summary judgment evidence, the Hansons attached Mr. Sealy’s
    deposition to their summary judgment response.           In his deposition, Mr. Sealy
    testified as follows:
    Q. And the fact of the matter is, whether you want to rely on Dr.
    Templer’s statistical or analytical research [in The Staircase], you are
    in possession of no factual information whatsoever, to indicate where,
    if anywhere, on that stairway Mrs. Hanson fell, correct?
    A. That’s correct.
    ....
    Q. Okay. Jump to the last page of your November 2007 report. I think
    we’ve covered this, but I just want to go ahead and make sure that we
    make sure that we’ve talked about it. First paragraph, middle of the first
    5
    sentence: “It is my opinion that Mrs. Joe Hanson lost her balance and
    fell on the garage stairway of her apartment at the Villas of Vista rose -
    - Vista Ridge - - in Lewisville, Texas.” Did I read that correctly?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And again, you have no factual information, upon which to
    base that opinion, other than the husband of a nonresponsive woman
    who told you that that’s where she fell, correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Next sentence: “It is also my opinion that Mrs. Hanson lost
    her balance and fell because of the inadequate lighting.” I’m going to
    stop there.
    You have no factual information whatsoever in your possession,
    do you, sir, to suggest that Mrs. Hanson fell anywhere because of
    inadequate lighting?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. To continue on: “And irregular dimensions of the stairway
    upon which she was walking.” I’m going to stop there.
    Isn’t it true, Mr. Sealy, that you have no factual information in
    your possession, upon which to rely, to suggest that Mrs. Hanson, if
    she fell, fell on that stairway because of irregular dimensions of the
    stairway, upon which she was walking?
    A. Correct.
    Q.    Continuing on: “And those inadequacies and irregularities
    contributed to Mrs. Hanson overstepping the tread, and that ultimately
    resulted in her loss of balance and her fall.” Did I read that correctly?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And isn’t it true, Mr. Sealy, that you have no factual information,
    upon which to rely, to conclude that Mrs. Hanson, if she fell, fell
    because she overstepped a tread and lost her balance?
    6
    A. Correct.
    Appellees claim that Mr. Sealy’s conclusion in his report that the poor
    illumination and irregularities in the steps caused Mrs. Hanson to fall constitutes pure
    speculation and conjecture, especially in light of the above deposition testimony
    attached to Appellants’ summary judgment response.
    An expert’s simple ipse dixit is insufficient to establish a matter; rather, the
    expert must explain the basis of his statements to link his conclusions to the facts.
    See City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W .3d 809, 818 (Tex. 2009) (quoting
    Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W .2d 229, 235 (Tex. 1999)); Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W .2d 882,
    890 (Tex. 1999). An expert’s conclusory statements are insufficient to raise a fact
    question to defeat summary judgment. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Tex.,
    Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W .3d 794, 803 (Tex. 2004); Wadewitz v. Montgomery, 951
    S.W .2d 464, 466 (Tex. 1997) (holding conclusory statements by an expert are not
    sufficient to support or defeat summary judgment). Instead, an expert’s opinions
    must be supported by facts in evidence, not merely conjecture. Marathon Corp. v.
    Pitzner, 106 S.W .3d 724, 729 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). That is, an expert’s opinions
    cannot rest on the expert’s subjective interpretation of the facts. See TXI Transp.
    Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W .3d 230, 239 (Tex. 2010). A party may complain that
    conclusory opinions are legally insufficient evidence to support a judgment even if
    the party did not object to the admission of the testimony. See Pollock, 284 S.W .3d
    at 816.
    7
    Here, no facts exist in the summary judgment record that support Mr. Sealy’s
    opinions and conclusions that Mrs. Hanson fell on the stairs because of the
    irregularities in them or because of inadequate lighting. Consequently, Mr. Sealy’s
    conclusions, based on speculation and conjecture, constitute no evidence and will
    not defeat a summary judgment. See IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr., 143 S.W .3d at
    803; see also Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W .2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995)
    (explaining that when an expert’s opinion is based upon assumed facts that vary
    materially from the actual undisputed facts, the opinion is without probative value).
    The law is well settled that testimony such as Mrs. Hanson’s—that she did not
    know or recall how she fell—is insufficient to raise a fact issue on proximate cause.
    See, e.g., Excel Corp. v. Apodaca, 81 S.W .3d 817, 820–21 (Tex. 2002) (holding no
    evidence existed to support jury’s cause-in-fact proximate cause finding because “at
    best, Apodaca offered evidence that he suffered work-related injuries, but presented
    no proof that if Excel had done something different at the worksite, Apodaca would
    not have been injured or would not have been injured as severely”); Summers v. Fort
    Crockett Hotel, Ltd., 902 S.W .2d 20, 25–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995,
    writ denied) (affirming summary judgment for defendant after plaintiff’s son fell from
    balcony because no evidence existed that alleged inadequate height of balcony
    railing “had anything to do with [son]’s fall”); Hopper v. J. C. Penney, 371 S.W .2d
    750, 752–53 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort W orth 1963, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding no evidence
    of proximate cause existed and affirming directed verdict for defense when plaintiff
    8
    admitted that she did not know what caused her to fall down stairway because
    appellate court was “left to speculate whether her hand failed to reach the handrail
    toward which she was reaching, or grasped the same only to have her hand slip;
    whether she missed the first step or stepped thereupon only to have her foot slip, her
    ankle turn, her heel or toe to catch in some obstruction, etc.”).
    W e agree with the Hansons that in this summary judgment proceeding, they
    were not required to negate the possibilities of other causes of Mrs. Hanson’s fall.
    See generally Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 235 S.W .2d 609, 621 (Tex. 1950). W e do
    not impose this burden upon them; instead, we review the summary judgment
    evidence in the light most favorable to them to determine whether a genuine issue
    of material fact exists on the proximate cause element of their causes of action
    against Appellees. The summary judgment record before us is simply void of any
    direct or circumstantial evidence or any reasonable inferences from the summary
    judgment evidence that any problem with the stairs was the cause in fact of Mrs.
    Hanson’s fall. The summary judgment evidence conclusively establishes that no
    one knows how, why, or where in the stairwell Mrs. Hanson fell.
    Accordingly, because each Appellee moved for summary judgment—either
    traditional or no-evidence summary judgment—on the ground that no genuine issue
    of material fact existed with regard to the proximate cause element of the Hansons’
    claims against it and because each of the claims asserted by the Hansons against
    each of the Appellees requires proof of proximate cause, we affirm the trial court’s
    9
    summary judgments for each of the Appellees on this ground. See, e.g., Carr v.
    Brasher, 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989) (instructing us that if trial court’s
    summary judgment does not specify the grounds upon which it is granted, we are
    to affirm the judgment if any of the theories advanced are meritorious). W e overrule
    the Hansons’ sole issue claiming that the trial court erred by granting summary
    judgments for Appellees.
    V. C ONCLUSION
    Having determined that Appellees’ no-evidence and traditional summary
    judgment motions—which challenge the proximate cause element of all of the
    Hansons’ causes of action against Appellees—are meritorious, we affirm the trial
    court’s summary judgments. Because we affirm the trial court’s summary judgments
    on this basis, we need not address the Hansons’ challenges to the other grounds on
    which the trial court’s summary judgments could have been based.
    SUE W ALKER
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: DAUPHINOT, W ALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
    DAUPHINOT, J. filed a dissenting opinion.
    DELIVERED: July 15, 2010
    10
    COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 2-09-397-CV
    ANGIE HANSON AND JOE HANSON                      APPELLANTS
    V.
    GREYSTAR DEVELOPMENT &                            APPELLEES
    CONSTRUCTION, LP; HOUSTON
    STAFFORD ELECTRICAL
    CONTRACTORS; MULTI BUILDING
    INCORPORATED; W LA VISTA
    RIDGE V LP; W LA VISTA RIDGE
    GP V LLC; COTTONW OOD REAL
    ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
    LARAMAR MANAGEMENT
    SERVICES LLC; GABLES RESIDENTIAL
    SERVICES INC.; W ALTON STREET
    CAPITOL, LLC; W LA APARTMENT
    HOLDINGS V, LP; & W LA VISTA RIDGE
    GP CAPITAL V, LLC
    ------------
    FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
    ------------
    DISSENTING OPINION
    ------------
    In a civil trial, a plaintiff must prove her case by a preponderance of the
    evidence. In response to a no-evidence summary judgment motion, however, a
    plaintiff need only produce enough evidence on a challenged element to raise an
    issue of fact.1 Because I believe that the Hansons produced sufficient evidence on
    causation to defeat a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, I respectfully
    dissent.
    The “cause in fact” element of proximate cause requires proof that the
    negligent act or omission complained of was a substantial factor in bringing about
    the harm at issue. 2 Even when it is undisputed that negligence has occurred, the
    plaintiff must put on proof of a causal link between the negligence and the injuries
    complained of. 3 A plaintiff may use circumstantial evidence to establish causation. 4
    The Hansons produced evidence that not only were the edges of the treads
    on the stairs irregular throughout the stairway, but they were also unpainted or
    otherwise marked, so that they blended together visually, making it difficult for
    someone to identify the edge of the tread. On top of that, the stairway did not have
    1
     Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).
    2
     Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp.,
    299 S.W .3d 106, 122 (Tex. 2009); Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue,
    271 S.W .3d 238, 246 (Tex. 2008).
    3
     Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W .3d 662, 666 (Tex. 2007); Alexander v. Turtur
    & Assocs., Inc., 146 S.W .3d 113, 119 (Tex. 2004).
    4
     B. M. & R. Interests v. Snyder, 453 S.W .2d 360, 363–64 (Tex. Civ.
    App.—Tyler 1970, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
    3
    adequate light. Common sense and the average lay person’s own experience is all
    that is necessary to provide the requisite knowledge that any of the conditions of
    which the Hansons complain make stairs unsafe, let alone the combination of the
    conditions. Unfortunately, there were no witnesses, and so other than Angie’s own
    testimony, no evidence could definitively establish the cause of her fall. But Angie’s
    injuries were so severe that she now has no memory of what caused her to fall. The
    Hansons did, however, produce evidence showing not only that the stairs did not
    conform to building codes, but that the particular conditions of the stairs are known
    causes of stair falls.
    A fact finder may draw inferences from the evidence. 5 And courts have, in
    limited cases, allowed the fact finder to find causation based on an inference drawn
    from the evidence.
    [I]f a cause is shown that might produce an event and it being shown
    that an event of that particular character did occur, it may be inferred
    that the known possibility produced the result. Plaintiff is not required
    to exclude an appreciable chance that the event might have occurred
    in some other way. Expressed otherwise, a conclusion of causal
    connection may be inferred by a balance of probabilities. 6
    5
     See, e.g., Farley v. M M Cattle Co., 529 S.W .2d 751, 757 (Tex. 1975)
    (allowing the jury to infer that the plaintiff had taken certain actions based on direct
    evidence of the plaintiff’s characteristic behavior), abrogated on other grounds by
    Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W .2d 512 (Tex. 1978).
    6
     Collier v. Hill & Hill Exterminators, 322 S.W .2d 329, 337 (Tex. Civ.
    App.—Houston 1959, no writ); see also Davis v. Anderson, 501 S.W .2d 459, 463
    (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1973, no writ); Bohn Bros. v. Turner, 182 S.W .2d 419,
    422–23 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1944, writ ref’d w.o.m.).
    4
    Because the Hansons produced some evidence showing (1) that the stairs were in
    a certain condition, (2) that the condition is a known cause of stair falls, and (3) that
    someone did fall, they therefore produced some evidence from which a fact finder
    could infer that the condition of the stairs caused the fall. 7 This evidence was
    sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact on causation.
    This case is unlike other situations in which the injuries complained of could
    have any number of possible causes, each just as likely as any other, 8 or a case in
    which there was evidence of other obvious potential causes. 9            The Hansons
    produced evidence, not just of conditions that might cause someone to fall, but of
    conditions known to cause falls. In fact, building codes prohibit these kinds of
    conditions precisely because they are known to be dangerous and to cause falls.
    Thus, there was evidence of a condition that was known to be dangerous and known
    to produce a certain result—falling—and no evidence of any other obvious cause of
    Angie’s fall. The Hansons therefore had no need to produce evidence discounting
    other possible causes of the fall. 10 By balancing the probability that the condition of
    7
     See Davis, 501 S.W .2d at 463; Collier, 322 S.W .2d at 337; Bohn Bros.,
    182 S.W .2d at 422–23.
    8
     Cf. Hang On II, Inc. v. Tuckey, 978 S.W .2d 281, 284 (Tex. App.—Fort
    W orth 1998, no pet.); Hopper v. J. C. Penney Co., 371 S.W .2d 750, 752–53 (Tex.
    Civ. App.—Fort W orth 1963, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
    9
     See Collier, 322 S.W .2d at 337; cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Merrell, No.
    09-0224, 2010 W L 2431635, at *2 (Tex. June 18, 2010).
    10
     Cf. Merrell, 2010 W L 2431635, at *2.
    5
    the stairs caused the fall against the probability that some unknown factor, the
    existence of which there was no evidence, caused the fall, a fact finder could infer
    that it was more likely than not that the stairs’ condition caused the fall. I would
    therefore hold that under these limited facts, the Hansons produced sufficient
    evidence on causation to at least raise an issue of fact and defeat no-evidence
    summary judgment. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
    LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
    JUSTICE
    DELIVERED: July 15, 2010
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-09-00397-CV

Filed Date: 7/15/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/1/2016