 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.8/23/2001
This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P;, disposing of a personal injury lawsuit over a trip and fall accident. In three points of error, the appellant, Tommie L. Jackson, complains the trial court erred in granting HL&P;s motion for summary judgment on her negligence claims. We affirm.
Background and Procedural History
On March 3, 1997, Jackson, while walking on a sidewalk at the southwest corner of Milam and Gray streets in Houston, Texas, tripped over a protruding guy wire anchor, fell down, and was seriously injured. A wooden utility distribution pole owned by HL&P;is located at that corner. No guy wire was attached to either the pole or to the anchor over which Jackson tripped. The record does not reveal: the distance between the anchor and the HL&P;pole; when the pole was installed; the extent of any easement owned by HL&P;for the pole; nor when or who installed the anchor. The letters "STL" are forged into a metal plate on the head of the anchor. The evidence showed STL was a company that went out of business in the 1950's.
Jackson filed suit against HL&P; alleging that as a result of the fall, she broke her right humerus, suffered bruises and permanent scarring, and was unable to work for a long period of time. She claimed that HL&P;negligently allowed the guy wire anchor to protrude from the sidewalk, creating a dangerous condition, and this condition was the direct and proximate cause of her fall. Specifically, she alleged HL&P;was negligent in failing to: inspect and maintain the sidewalk to discover the dangerous condition; maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition; give warnings to Jackson of the unsafe condition; remove the protruding guy wire anchor; and discover and remove the guy wire anchor within a reasonable time. She sought recovery of actual damages of $750,000 as well as exemplary damages.
HL&P;answered with a general denial and further pleaded the following defenses: Jackson's own negligence was the proximate cause or sole proximate cause of the accident; Jackson's injuries were caused by an intervening cause or a new and unanticipated event that was the proximate, producing, sole proximate, or new and independent cause of her injuries; and the conduct of persons over whom HL&P;had no control and no right of control were the proximate, sole proximate, producing or new and independent cause of her injuries. Additionally, HL&P;pleaded the affirmative defenses of contributory or comparative negligence and failure to mitigate damages.
HL&P;moved for summary judgment pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(b), claiming the evidence showed HL&P;owed no duty to Jackson as a matter of law, and pursuant to Rule 166a(i), alleging there was no evidence HL&P;owed Jackson a duty or breached any duty.
Jackson filed a response asking the court to deny HL&P;s motion for summary judgment, claiming a fact issue existed regarding HL&P;s ownership of the guy wire anchor and, consequently, HL&P;s duty to Jackson.
The trial court granted HL&P;s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jackson's negligence claims with prejudice. The judgment did not specify the grounds for rendering summary judgment.
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper only when a movant establishes there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Randall's Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995); Marchal v. Webb, 859 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tex. App.-Housto
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|