Alma L. Gomez and Alberto F. Gomez, Individually and as Next Friend of Jorge Elias Gomez, a Minor, and on Behalf of the Estate of Jorge Elias Gomez, a Minor And Yolanda Medellin, Individually and as Next Friend of Jesus Medellin v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
04-16-00342-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- On May 23, 2009, two 12-year-olds rode a 2001 Honda TRX 250 ATV; the ATV left the road, landed in a canal, killing Jorge Gomez and injuring Jesus Medellin.
- Plaintiffs (Alma and Alberto Gomez and Yolanda Medellin) sued Honda for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties, alleging unreasonable/defective design, manufacture, and marketing caused the ATV to flip.
- Plaintiffs designated multiple experts; the trial court excluded testimony of several (Renfroe, Nelson, Green); this exclusion was previously affirmed on interlocutory appeal.
- Honda moved for a no-evidence summary judgment arguing plaintiffs had no admissible expert evidence to prove defect or causation; plaintiffs relied on designations and disclosure responses for Roberts and Andrews and cross-designation of Honda experts.
- The trial court granted Honda’s no-evidence summary judgment; on appeal the court considered whether Honda raised a new ground in its reply and whether plaintiffs produced more than a scintilla of competent expert evidence.
- The court held plaintiffs’ expert designations and disclosure responses (unsworn pleadings/discovery responses) were not competent summary-judgment evidence and affirmed the summary judgment for Honda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Honda raised a new summary-judgment ground in its reply | Honda only argued plaintiffs had no experts; reply cannot add new grounds | Honda argued throughout that expert testimony was necessary and that plaintiffs had no admissible expert proof of defect or causation | Honda’s motion was sufficiently specific under Rule 166a(i); no new ground was raised |
| Whether plaintiffs produced competent expert evidence to defeat a no-evidence motion | Designation and supplemental disclosure listing Roberts/Andrews sufficed to show admissible expert proof | Designations/disclosures are not competent summary-judgment evidence without affidavits/depositions/sworn testimony | Plaintiffs produced no more than a scintilla; designation/disclosure alone was insufficient |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove defect and causation | Plaintiffs contended marketing/negligence claims could be proved without experts and could rely on Honda’s experts | Honda asserted product-liability claims require expert proof of defect and causation | Court agreed expert proof was necessary and plaintiffs failed to provide competent expert evidence |
| Whether exclusion of other experts required further Robinson reliability analysis at summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued trial court improperly ruled on reliability without full Robinson analysis | Honda relied on prior exclusions and asserted remaining experts offered no competent testimony | Court did not reach Robinson issues because plaintiffs’ lack of competent evidence was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (Rule 166a(i) specificity and purpose of no-evidence motion)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence standard; scintilla threshold)
- Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 462 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. 1970) (pleadings are not competent summary-judgment evidence)
- Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (pleadings generally not competent evidence)
- Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (no-evidence summary-judgment standard application)
- Garcia v. Garza, 311 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (reply cannot amend no-evidence motion)