 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzalez v. Mountain Valley Apartments8/24/2000
Irma Gonzalez, individually and as representative of the estate of her husband Salome Gonzalez, and Alejandro Gutierrez and Blanca Munoz, individually and as next friends of their four children (collectively referred to as "Gonzalez and Gutierrez") appeal the trial court's summary judgment dismissing their claims for premises liability and breach of the warranty of habitability against the Mountain Valley Apartments (sometimes referred to as "the apartments"), and two of its employees (collectively referred to as "Mountain Valley"). In two issues, Gonzalez and Gutierrez claim the trial court erred by granting Mountain Valley's motion for summary judgment and overruling their motion for new trial on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact or no evidence to support their (1) premises liability claim and (2) breach of the warranty of habitability claim. Because we conclude the summary judgment evidence failed to raise a fact issue as to foreseeability and the warranty of habitability claim does not apply to personal injury cases as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
Salome Gonzalez and his family lived at the Mountain Valley Apartment complex. On the night of July 3, 1995, Gonzalez and his cousin, Alejandro Gutierrez, were sitting in Gonzalez's van parked at the apartments. Some men approached the van and shot both Gonzalez and Gutierrez. The assailants then stole Gonzalez's van, drove it one block from the apartment complex, setting it on fire. Gonzalez died from the gun shot wounds; Gutierrez recovered.
Gonzalez and Gutierrez sued Mountain Valley alleging negligence, gross negligence, breach of implied warranties and the warranty of habitability, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. Mountain Valley filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing all claims except the claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. A week later, Mountain Valley filed a motion for summary judgment on the warranty of habitability issue. The trial court granted the motion and rendered final judgment in favor of Mountain Valley. Gonzalez and Gutierrez filed a motion for new trial, asking the court to reconsider the order granting summary judgment and to reopen evidence. Gonzalez and Gutierrez never requested a hearing on their motion for new trial and the court never expressly ruled on the motion. After the motion was overruled by operation of law, Gonzalez and Gutierrez appealed.
Standards for Summary Judgment
The standards for reviewing summary judgments are well established. See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-4 (Tex. 1985). The movant has the burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Id. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in the non-movant's favor. Id.
A no-evidence motion for summary judgment, filed under Rule 166(a)(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, after adequate time for discovery, a party may move for summary judgment as to all or part of a lawsuit on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which the adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). When a motion is presented under rule 166a(i) asserting there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of the non-movant's claim upon which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at trial, the burden shifts to the non-movant to present evidence that r
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|