Jamie Cross v. Martha and James Eugene Littlefield
11-14-00224-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Cross (plaintiff), a guest at the Littlefields’ lake house, twisted her ankle and fell while descending a single porch step she claimed had an excessive slope and was unreasonably dangerous.
- Cross sued Martha and James Eugene Littlefield pro se for negligence/premises liability the day before limitations ran.
- The Littlefields moved for summary judgment (traditional and no-evidence). Cross filed a response but provided no competent summary judgment evidence beyond some documents and a verification.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Littlefields without specifying grounds; Cross’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo, treated plaintiff’s unsworn pleadings and statements as judicial admissions in part, and focused on whether the owners owed a duty to Cross.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Littlefields owed a duty to Cross (premises liability) | Cross argued the step had a dangerous slope, was not visible to her, and owners had a duty to warn or make it safe | Littlefields argued Cross was a licensee who perceived the defect, so they owed no duty to warn or make safe | Held: No duty as a matter of law because Cross perceived the condition (judicial admissions and circumstances) |
| Whether Cross’s filings raised a genuine fact issue to defeat summary judgment | Cross relied on her complaint, response, photos, and verification to create fact issues | Littlefields contended Cross’s pleadings/status statements were insufficient competent summary-judgment evidence | Held: Court treated key statements as judicial admissions and found other assertions conclusory and insufficient |
| Whether the trial court erred by not specifying which ground (traditional or no-evidence) supported summary judgment | Cross argued lack of specificity prevented her from knowing which elements were challenged under no-evidence motion | Littlefields had asserted both grounds but did not identify specific elements in the no-evidence motion | Held: Appellate court declined to address no-evidence ground and resolved case on traditional motion (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. 2003) (no duty where plaintiff perceived dangerous condition before injury)
- Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001) (clear judicial admissions are conclusive)
- State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1992) (landowner duty to licensee limited to warning of or making safe known dangers)
- Mendez v. Knights of Columbus Hall, 431 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1968) (guest/licensee status and perception of step as a matter of law)
- Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, and proximate causation)