 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marroquin v. Life Management Center for MH/MR Services6/6/1996
In this appeal, appellant Angelina Marroquin (Marroquin), challenges the trial court's granting of a summary judgement favoring appellee Life Management Center for MH/MR Services (Life Management). We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Manuel Marroquin is a mentally retarded individual with an Intelligence Quotient between 33 and 40. On March 3, 1993, he was attending appellee's treatment center in northeast El Paso. On that date, a Life Management employee found him and another client in one of the bathrooms of the facility. They had both been masturbating. On April 22, 1993, Mr. Marroquin left the facility in the company of two other individuals who were also attending the facility. One of these individuals was the same person found with Mr. Marroquin in the bathroom on the third of March. They went into the desert area behind the facility and the three engaged in sexual activity. At the time of this incident, Mr. Marroquin was his own legal guardian. Angelina Marroquin became her son's legal guardian and brought a negligence action against Life Management on his behalf.
Marroquin claimed that Life Management was negligent in its supervision of Mr. Marroquin and was negligent in the utilization of its property and patient records. Specifically, Marroquin asserts that while there were locks on the doors and the gates of the facility, there were no alarms or any type of video surveillance to monitor the arrivals and departures of the clients.
The summary judgement evidence regarding security at the facility revealed that the doors and gates of the facility were not locked. The doors locked from the outside when closed but opened when pushed from the inside. The facility provided no security alarms and the patients could come and go at will. In the summer, some of the doors were left open to facilitate the air conditioning. There were no security guards at the treatment center and there was no video surveillance equipment. The doors had no alarm apparatus that would signal if the doors were opened. Several employees of the facility stated they felt there was no problem regarding unauthorized persons entering the facility. There was also testimony that Mr. Marroquin required little supervision and he "was never known to wander off."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a summary judgement on appeal, the reviewing court must determine whether the successful movant in the court below carried its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). In making the decision whether or not there is a disputed fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true, and in that connection, every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in his or her favor. Id. at 548-49. If the movant submits summary judgment evidence which disproves at least one element of the plaintiff's case, then summary judgement should be granted. Wyatt v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc., 908 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1995, writ denied); Rayos v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 683 S.W.2d 546, 547 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1985, no writ).
IMMUNITY
In appellant's sole point of error, he asserts that the court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgement because there existed genuine issues of material fact as to appellee's defense of governmental immunity. Specifically, appellant claims that a fact question exists regarding appellee's misuse of its real and personal property which constitutes a waiver of its claims to
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.
|
|