Sarah Mangham v. YMCA of Austin, Texas-Hays Communities
408 S.W.3d 923
Tex. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Mangham slipped and fell during a YMCA step-aerobics class; she had selected and assembled the step herself, continued class briefly after reassembling it, then later put the step away and left.
- Three days later she reported the injury to the YMCA but said she did not want “anything to come of it,” then subsequently sued for premises liability and negligence alleging the step was misaligned and came out from under her.
- In deposition Mangham repeatedly testified she did not know what caused her fall and saw nothing wrong with the step before or after the fall.
- YMCA moved for no-evidence and traditional summary judgment arguing Mangham had no evidence on essential elements (including causation and owner knowledge/inspection).
- The trial court granted summary judgment (order did not specify which motion); Mangham also sought a spoliation presumption because the specific step was not preserved.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo, began with the no-evidence standard, and affirmed summary judgment and rejection of a spoliation presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment proper under no-evidence standard | Mangham argued facts (step misaligned; YMCA failed to inspect/warn/instruct) raise fact issues | YMCA argued Mangham has no evidence of essential elements (knowledge, dangerous condition, causation, breach) | Affirmed summary judgment: Mangham failed to produce more than a scintilla on essential elements |
| Premises-liability: owner knowledge / dangerous condition / breach | Step was defective (misaligned) and YMCA failed to inspect/repair or warn | No evidence YMCA knew or should have known of a dangerous condition; Mangham saw nothing wrong and admitted she does not know cause | Affirmed: no evidence YMCA had actual/constructive knowledge or failed to exercise reasonable care; fall alone insufficient to create dangerous-condition inference |
| Negligent-activity (general negligence) vs premises nonfeasance | YMCA failed to instruct on setup/use and failed to disclose 200-lb limit — affirmative acts/omissions caused injury | These omissions are noncontemporaneous and do not show affirmative, contemporaneous activity causing the injury; no proximate cause evidence | Affirmed: negligent-activity theory inapplicable; no evidence of contemporaneous activity or proximate cause |
| Spoliation / presumption from failure to preserve step | Mangham sought presumption that destroyed step would show a defect and argued prejudice | YMCA argued it had no duty to preserve (Mangham herself put step away; she told staff she was OK and later said she didn’t want anything to come of it) | Affirmed denial of presumption: no duty to preserve shown; destruction not shown intentional or within YMCA’s control; presumption would not alone create required evidence on other elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Palmer, 381 S.W.3d 525 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (summary judgment standards and review approach)
- Fort Brown Villas III Condo. Ass’n v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W.3d 879 (premises-liability duty depends on plaintiff status)
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (elements of invitee premises-liability claim; negligent-activity vs premises distinction)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (no-evidence summary judgment legal-sufficiency standard)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (no-evidence / scintilla standard principles)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (fall alone insufficient to prove dangerous condition or owner knowledge)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718 (spoliation instruction prerequisites and duty-to-preserve test)
- Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950 (spoliation is remedy in discovery context; factors for instruction)