Boerjan v. Rodriguez
436 S.W.3d 307
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Trespass by a driver on a ranch while transporting a family led to a high-speed chase; vehicle rollover killed the family and injured a passenger.
- Rodriguezes filed wrongful death, negligence, gross negligence, assault, and negligent entrustment/retention/supervision claims against Ranch Petitioners.
- Trial court granted traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims.
- Court of Appeals reversed on several points, preserving some claims and reversing others based on the unlawful acts doctrine and duty analyses.
- Texas Supreme Court held that the unlawful acts doctrine cannot support summary judgment due to legislative changes, and reviewed duty and gross-negligence issues de novo.
- Court clarified that landowners owe no ordinary negligence duty to trespassers, only to avoid wilful, wanton, or grossly negligent harm; evidence did not establish gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful acts doctrine applicability | Rodríguezs rely on unlawful acts doctrine to bar claims. | Dugger abrogated the doctrine under Chapter 33 comparative fault. | Doctrine cannot support summary judgment; reversed traditional SJ error. |
| Duty owed to trespassers | Ranch owed ordinary negligence duty to avoid harm to trespassers. | Only duty to avoid wilful, wanton, or gross negligence; no ordinary duty. | Rodriguezes' negligence claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Gross negligence evidence | There was an extreme risk and awareness of risk in high-speed chase. | Evidence does not show extreme risk or conscious indifference. | No genuine issue of material fact; no gross-negligence shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 9 S.W. 602 (Tex. 1888) (unlawful acts doctrine governs when plaintiff relies on illegal act)
- Tex. Utils. Elec. Co. v. Timmons, 947 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1997) (premises owner owes only non-wilful, non-wanton, non-gross duty to trespassers)
- Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013) (abrogated unlawful acts doctrine via Chapter 33 comparative responsibility)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1998) (extreme risk and magnitude required for gross negligence element)
- Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2001) (gross negligence defined with objective and subjective elements)
- Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) (necessity of proving subjective awareness in gross negligence analysis)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidence standard for no-evidence summary judgments)
- Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (duty inquiry in negligence cases)