Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Betty Sharon Scroggs fell on a metal hinge of a jet bridge while boarding an American Airlines airplane. She filed suit against American, alleging both negligence and premises liability causes of action. American filed for both traditional and no-evidence grounds summary judgment. American argued that Scroggs had no evidence that the jet bridge or metal hinge was an unreasonably dangerous condition, that American had actual or constructive knowledge of any unreasonably dangerous condition or that the condition of the jet bridge caused Scroggs to fall. American also argued that there was no cause of action for negligence, because Scroggs had no evidence of duty, breach or causation. In response, Scroggs filed an expert’s affidavit. American moved to strike Scroggs’ summary judgment evidence. The trial court held a hearing on American’s summary judgment motions, but then postponed the hearing. American supplemented its motion for summary judgment and sent Scroggs a notice that the motion would be heard on June 26. American then moved to strike Scroggs’ expert witness. Scroggs responded to the supplemental summary judgment motion on June 19, including excerpts from her expert’s deposition and her own medical reports. American supplemented its motion to strike Scroggs’ expert on June 25, and Scroggs responded to the original motion to strike the same day. Instead of holding a hearing on the motion for summary judgment on June 26, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to strike. No written order from this hearing was entered, however. On July 3, the trial court granted American’s motion for summary judgment. Scroggs appeals the final judgment. She also argues that because there is no written order excluding any specific summary judgment evidence, this court should conclude that American’s objections were overruled. American contends its objections were addressed by the trial court and were sustained. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court finds there is no ruling from which to infer the trial court’s final resolution of American’s objections. Looking at the record from the proceeding, the court concludes that the trial court did not reach a decision for a final order concerning the motion to strike or on American’s objections to Scroggs’ summary judgment evidence. Because there is no clear indication of what final ruling the court made, and because the court itself did not interpret objections to specific opinions, the court rules that there is no order before it to indicate that any of the summary judgment evidence was stricken or excluded. Turning, then, to the summary judgment rulings, the court observes that American attached evidence in support of its motion, which would ordinarily mean reviewing the motion as a traditional summary judgment motion. However, even though it attached evidence, all of American’s arguments allege that Scroggs presented “no evidence.” Accordingly, the court says that it will review the issues under the no-evidence standard. The court finds more than a scintilla of evidence on whether an unreasonably dangerous condition existed. Scroggs’ expert’s affidavit discussed the slope of the jet bridge and the slickness of the surface. The court finds more than a scintilla of evidence on whether American had actual or constructive knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous condition. Scroggs submitted incident reports of other passengers falling on American jet bridges. Also, American presented evidence that hand rails were used on other jet bridges, and a reasonable inference of constructive knowledge may be made when one location in a building is made safer by altering the area (such as by adding hand rails) but another similar place is not so altered. Additionally, there was evidence that the jet bridge in question was bought in 1972, had never been refurbished, and was taken out of service and destroyed after Scroggs filed this suit. The court finds more than a scintilla of evidence that an unreasonably dangerous condition proximately caused Scroggs’ injuries. Scroggs said she slipped on the metal transition plate of the jet bridge, and her expert opined that the slope and slipperiness of the plate caused Scroggs to fall. The court finds more than a scintilla of evidence that Scroggs suffered mental anguish. Scroggs’ doctor stated that her injuries had left Scroggs depressed. The court, however, affirms the trial court’s dismissal of Scroggs’ negligent conduct claim. There is no evidence of any contemporaneous activity by which Scroggs alleged she was injured. Any argument she had addressed an alleged condition created by an activity instead of an activity that actually caused her injury. OPINION:Mazzant, J.; Wright, Richter and Mazzant, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.