Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Ernestina Moreno was struck by a car when she walked out from between two vehicles in a parking lot owned by LMB, Ltd. Ernestina, who was suffering from cancer at the time, sustained a number of injuries in the accident. When she died approximately one year later, her spouse, children, and the representative of her estate (the Morenos) brought suit against LMB and others. The Morenos alleged LMB was negligent in failing to inspect for and correct premises defects which caused the accident and Ernestina Moreno’s death. LMB moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence it proximately caused Ernestina Moreno’s injuries or her death. In support of their response to the summary judgment motion, the Morenos attached an affidavit from Dr. Gumaro Garza, Ernestina Moreno’s treating physician, medical records, and a police accident report. In his affidavit, Garza stated that “[i]n reasonable medical probability, the death of Ernestina Moreno resulted from her weakened condition caused by the accident in question. Therefore, in my opinion, the conduct of [LMB] substantially caused Ernestina Moreno’s injuries and death.” The trial court granted LMB’s motion for summary judgment. By a divided opinion, the 13th Court of Appeals reversed. The court of appeals concluded that Garza’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to causation. HOLDING:Garza’s affidavit, the court found, did not set out specific facts from which a jury could reasonably infer that LMB knew or should have known of some unreasonably dangerous condition of the premises which was involved in the accident. In sum, the court stated that the affidavit did not contain competent summary judgment evidence of either cause-in-fact or foreseeability. Because there was no summary judgment evidence that LMB proximately caused the incident in which Ernestina Moreno was injured, the court concluded that the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The court granted LMB’s petition for review, and without hearing oral argument, reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered judgment that the Morenos take nothing. OPINION:Per curiam.

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?


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.