Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Appeal from the 181st District Court Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 105, 905-B, Honorable John B. Board,
CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
C. Parker Justice.
and Mary Wilson, appellants, sued Northwest Texas Healthcare
System, Inc., appellee, for injuries suffered by Sterling
Wilson ("Wilson") arising from a slip and fall.
Appellants appeal the trial court's granting of summary
judgment in favor of Northwest. We affirm.
September of 2016, Wilson went to Northwest Texas Hospital to
visit his wife, Mary, a patient in the hospital. As Wilson
approached a hospital elevator, he encountered Jerry Hill, a
floor technician. Hill was in the process of taking a floor
buffing machine to a fellow staff member located in another
area of the hospital. Wilson saw the floor cleaning machine
when he walked into the hallway, and recalled it was big and
gray. According to Wilson, the floor cleaning machine is
taller than a table and at least the width of an adult's
body. The machine was partially blocking the hallway in front
of the elevator. Hill immediately stopped pushing the machine
when Wilson caught his attention. As Wilson headed to the
elevator, he fell when he attempted to go between the machine
and the wall. The machine was not running and was not in use
at the time of Wilson's fall.
testified he slipped on water that was on the floor. He did
not know how long the water had been on the floor, only that
he fell on it. Hill testified that part of his job
responsibility was to make sure the floor was clean and check
it for any spills. On the day in question, Hill had drained
the floor cleaning machine, checked to make sure the machine
was dry, and was pushing the machine through the hallway to
take it to another floor technician when he encountered
Wilson. Hill saw no spills on the floor and testified he did
not believe the floor was wet. In addition, Hill inspected
the floor after Wilson's fall and did not see anything
wet on the floor. Hill further testified the floor would not
have been wet from any cleaning, because that area of the
floor had not yet been cleaned.
sued Northwest for negligence, premises liability, and gross
negligence. In the third amended petition, appellants
alleged Wilson was injured "as a result of a dangerous
condition in that [Northwest] had a floor cleaning machine in
the doorway of the hall, in front of the elevators" and
because of liquid on the floor. Northwest filed a traditional
and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In its
traditional motion for summary judgment, Northwest asserts
that appellants' negligence claim is barred as a matter
of law, and that, on the premises liability claim, Northwest
did not have actual notice of any dangerous condition and did
not owe or breach any duty to Wilson. In its no-evidence
motion, Northwest asserts there is no evidence that: (1) a
dangerous condition existed on Northwest's premises, (2)
Northwest was aware or should have been aware of the
allegedly dangerous condition, (3) Wilson was not aware of
the condition, and (4) the alleged condition proximately
caused the accident and/or appellants' damages. The trial
court granted the motion for summary judgment without
specifying the grounds, and appellants appeal.
review the trial court's decision to grant summary
judgment de novo. Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467
S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015). In our review, we take as true
all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the
nonmovant's favor. Valence Operating Co. v.
Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). A trial court
properly grants a motion for summary judgment when the movant
has established that there are no genuine issues of material
fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128
S.W.3d 211, 215-16 (Tex. 2003). When the trial court does not
specify the grounds for its summary judgment, the appellate
court must affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories
presented to the trial court and preserved for appellate
review are meritorious. Id. at 216.
reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment, we must consider
all the evidence "in the light most favorable to the
party against whom the summary judgment was rendered,
crediting evidence favorable to that party if reasonable
jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless
reasonable jurors could not." Gonzalez v.
Ramirez, 463 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam)
quoting Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 306 S.W.3d 572,
582 (Tex. 2006); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168
S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). We will affirm a no-evidence
summary judgment if the record shows one of the following:
(1) there is no evidence on the challenged element, (2) the
evidence offered to prove the challenged element is no more
than a scintilla, (3) the evidence establishes the opposite
of the challenged element, or (4) the court is barred by law
or the rules of evidence from considering the only evidence
offered to prove the challenged element. Merriman v. XTO
Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex. 2013); City
of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810.
to compel hearing
first issue, appellants contend "reversible error arises
from improper venue."We construe appellants' issue to
complain of the trial court's conducting a hearing on
Northwest's motions to compel discovery in Randall ...