Smith v. MOODY GARDENS, INC.
336 S.W.3d 816
Tex. App.2011Background
- Smith sues Moody Gardens for breach of statutory duty under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 760.002 and for common law negligence and premises liability after injuring on an ice skating rink.
- Moody Gardens operated the rink with two public sessions and resurfaced ice before each session; industry practice is to resurface approximately hourly.
- Smith fell around 8:45 p.m. after skating, noticing a groove in the ice and rough/bumpy surface with ice shavings on the rink.
- Only pleaded statutory duty was to inspect and maintain the ice surface; jury later found no breach or no proximate cause.
- Trial court granted Moody Gardens’ no-evidence summary judgment on common law claims; jury verdict resolved the statutory claim in Moody Gardens’ favor; Smith appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict on proximate causation is factually sufficient. | Smith asserts the evidence shows Moody Gardens breached the stat duty and caused the fall. | Moody Gardens argues the evidence does not prove breach or proximate cause beyond reasonable doubt. | No; evidence supports the verdict finding no proximate cause. |
| Whether the no-evidence summary judgment on common law claims was harmless. | Smith contends error affected his ability to litigate claims arising from the same facts. | Because the statutory claim was resolved against Smith, common law claims are barred by the verdict. | Yes; any error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.2001) (standard for factual sufficiency review)
- Marin v. IESI TX Corp., 317 S.W.3d 314 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (factual sufficiency review framework)
- W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2005) (proximate causation elements)
- Sw. Key Program, Inc. v. Gil-Perez, 81 S.W.3d 269 (Tex.2002) (proximate causation analysis in negligence)
- Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 177 S.W.3d 919 (Tex.2005) (harm analysis for no-evidence summary judgments)
- Alpert v. Riley, 274 S.W.3d 277 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (jury instruction and summary judgment interplay)
- Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex.2006) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.1992) (premises/negligence standard distinctions)