Graham Central Station, Inc. v. Jesus Peña
442 S.W.3d 261
Tex.2014Background
- Jesús Peña was assaulted outside the Graham Central Station nightclub in Pharr and sued Graham Central Station, Inc. (GCS), alleging it owned the club and failed to provide adequate security.
- GCS filed a verified denial and in discovery identified Roger Gearhart as its president, but disclosed that Pharr Entertainment Complex, L.L.C. d/b/a Graham Central Station (Pharr Entertainment) owned and operated the nightclub and was the tenant in possession.
- Peña never amended his petition to add Pharr Entertainment; the case proceeded to a bench trial against GCS, which lost and was awarded damages (later reduced on appeal).
- Gearhart testified he was a minority owner and corporate representative, referring in his testimony to Pharr Entertainment as the “real name” for Graham Central Station; a security guard testified he was paid by “Graham Central Station.”
- The trial court rendered judgment for Peña; the court of appeals found evidence sufficient that GCS owned the nightclub and affirmed with remittitur. GCS petitioned the Texas Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held the evidence legally insufficient to show GCS owned or controlled the premises, found the owner was Pharr Entertainment, and rendered a take-nothing judgment for GCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Peña) | Defendant's Argument (GCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GCS owned/controlled the nightclub | Gearhart’s testimony and guard’s statement show GCS owned/provided security | Discovery and testimony show Pharr Entertainment owned/operated the club; GCS had no connection | No evidence GCS owned/controlled the nightclub; ownership held by Pharr Entertainment |
| Whether trial court’s failure to file findings of fact was reversible error | (implied) prejudiced appellate review | Failure was harmless; appellate review still possible | Harmless error; appellate and Supreme Court review proceeded |
| Whether inferences from ambiguous testimony could establish ownership | Ambiguous references to “that corporation” and “Graham Central Station” support ownership inference | Ambiguity cannot support reasonable inference; equal inference rule bars such a finding | Ambiguous testimony insufficient; equal inference rule applied |
| Whether Peña met burden to prove GCS owed a duty under Timberwalk | Peña proved GCS controlled security and owed duty | Peña failed to prove GCS owned/controlled premises and thus owed no Timberwalk duty | Peña failed to carry burden; no duty shown, claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1996) (failure to file findings harmless when appellate review not impeded)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal-sufficiency review)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (implied findings when court fails to file them)
- Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (attacking an adverse finding when appellant did not bear the burden)
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (scintilla standard quoted for legal sufficiency)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (definition of scintilla evidence cited)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (final test for legal sufficiency review)
- Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) (owner/occupier duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts)
- Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (equal inference rule; cannot draw an ultimate fact from meager circumstantial evidence)