 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Quanaim v. Frasco Restaurant & Catering9/23/1999
The appellant, a personal injury plaintiff in the court below, seeks reversal of three summary judgments rendered in favor of the defendant/appellee. In a challenge to this court's appellate jurisdiction, the appellee moves for dismissal on the grounds that the appellant failed to timely perfect this appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Factual and Procedural Background
In November 1997, Henry Quanaim ("Quanaim"), the appellant and the plaintiff in the suit below, sued Frasco Restaurant & Catering for injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell in the hallway of the Stouffer Renaissance Hotel, in June 1995. Quanaim, then a hotel employee, alleged that Frasco Restaurant & Catering, which had been hired to cater a wedding reception at the hotel, was negligent in permitting the floor to become hazardous and in failing to properly train and supervise its employees. Frasco Restaurant & Catering filed a verified answer denying that it was the proper party. Quanaim then joined Frasco, Inc. as a party defendant and asserted the same claims based on negligence and gross negligence. Frasco, Inc. asserted several affirmative defenses, including (1) that Quanaim's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations and (2) that Frasco, Inc. was an agent of Quanaim's employer (the owner of Stouffer Renaissance Hotel) for the purpose of catering the wedding, and thus was barred from bringing the suit by section 408.001(a) of the Texas Labor Code.
Frasco, Inc. filed two separate motions for summary judgment, each of which sought dismissal of the suit on independent grounds. In its first motion, filed March 18, 1998, Frasco, Inc. sought summary judgment on the grounds that it was not a possessor of the premises as a matter of law. On the same day, but in a separate motion, Frasco Restaurant & Catering moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not a legal entity at the time of the incident and, therefore, could not be sued. On April 15, 1998, Frasco, Inc. filed its "Second Motion for Summary Judgment," alleging that because Quanaim had sued his employer (the owner of the Stouffer Renaissance Hotel) in federal court to recover damages for the injuries made the subject of his state court suit, he was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor Code, section 408.001(a) from asserting claims against Frasco, Inc. in this suit.
The trial court did not rule on the summary judgment motions in the order they were filed, but in the course of a few weeks time the court granted each of the motions by entry of three separate orders. On May 5, 1998, the trial court granted the motion filed by Frasco Restaurant & Catering on the grounds that it was not a legal entity at the time of the incident and therefore could not be sued. On May 11, 1998, the trial court granted the "Second Motion for Summary Judgment" disposing of Quanaim's claims against Frasco, Inc. on the grounds that they are barred by the Texas Labor Code's exclusive remedy provisions. On May 18, 1998, the trial court signed the order which Frasco, Inc. had submitted in connection with its first motion for summary judgment (based on the defense that Frasco, Inc. was not a possessor of the premises as a matter of law).
On June 17, 1998, Quanaim simultaneously filed a motion for new trial and a separate motion asking the trial court to reconsider its rulings on the summary judgment motions. In both of its June 17, 1998 motions, Quanaim set forth arguments addressing each of the grounds on which Frasco Restaurant & Catering and Frasco, Inc. (hereafter collectively referred to as "Frasco") had moved for each of the respective summary judgments. In opp
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|