Laura Leticia Zepeda Vasquez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham Vasquez,Jr. v. Legend Natural Gas III, LP Legend Natural Gas, LLC Lewis Energy Group, LP And Lewis Petro Properties, Inc
04-14-00899-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Leticia Zepeda Vasquez sued multiple oil- and gas-related companies after her husband died in a vehicle accident on Krueger Road (La Salle County, TX) on August 4, 2012, alleging defendants’ trucks (speeding and possibly overweight) damaged the public road and created a dust cloud that caused the crash.
- Legend Natural Gas III, LP and Legend Natural Gas, LLC moved to dismiss under Texas Rule 91a as baseless; the trial court granted the motion and later granted all defendants’ Rule 91a motions.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissals; she did not request leave to amend her petition in the trial court after dismissal.
- Defendants argued (1) a lawful user of a public road owes no duty to repair or warn about roadway deterioration and (2) plaintiff’s factual allegations are conclusory and legally insufficient to show unlawful conduct by defendants.
- Defendants relied primarily on Texas precedent holding that imposing a duty on lawful road users would make highway use unreasonably hazardous from a liability standpoint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a lawful user of a public roadway owes a duty to repair or warn about roadway deterioration | Defendants’ trucking damaged Krueger Road (speed/overweight use) and created a dust hazard; they therefore owed a duty to maintain/warn | No duty exists: maintenance and repair of public roadways is the responsibility of state/local government; imposing a duty on lawful users is barred by Texas law | Court relied on precedent that a non-negligent lawful user does not owe such a duty (dismissal affirmed) |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim | Complaint alleges trucks traveled at high rates of speed and were possibly overweight, producing dust that caused the crash | Allegations are conclusory ("possibly/ maybe") and lack facts showing unlawful conduct or causal link between lawful use and dangerous road condition | Court treated pleadings as legally insufficient under Rule 91a; conclusory assertions do not meet the plausibility standard |
| Whether defendants had a duty to warn other road users of obvious hazards (dust cloud) | Failure to warn about dangerous condition (dust) created by defendants’ use proximately caused death | Dust from an unmaintained road is an obvious condition; there is therefore no duty to warn | Court followed authorities holding no duty to warn of obvious/publicly foreseeable risks |
| Whether plaintiff forfeited opportunity to amend after dismissal | Plaintiff argues dismissal was erroneous and seeks appellate relief | Plaintiff did not request leave to amend or tender proposed amendments in trial court; failure forfeits right to seek amendment on appeal | Court held plaintiff waived opportunity to amend by not seeking leave below; appellate challenge to lack of amendment is forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchanan v. Rose, 159 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. 1942) (non-negligent lawful user of public roadway owes no duty to warn or repair hazardous conditions created by lawful use)
- Grapotte v. Adams, 130 Tex. 587, 111 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1938) (duty to repair sidewalks/public thoroughfares rests with the municipality; private users not liable for ordinary use-induced deterioration)
- Adams v. Grapotte, 69 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Civ. App. 1934) (same principle regarding municipal duty to maintain public thoroughfares)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. 2009) (no duty to warn about risks that are common knowledge)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. 1995) (no duty to warn of obvious risks)
- Tara Partners, Ltd. v. City of South Houston, 282 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (plaintiff who fails to seek leave to amend after dismissal forfeits opportunity to cure pleading defects)