 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Henson v. Southwest Airlines Co.11/30/2005
Before Justices Lang, Lang-Miers, and Mazzant
Opinion
Desmond T. Henson appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment for Southwest Airlines Company. In two issues, he argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his malicious prosecution and negligence claims were preempted by federal law, and that the issues raised in Southwest's no-evidence motion for summary judgment are not properly before the court. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
Appellant purchased a one-way ticket with cash for a Southwest flight from St. Louis, Missouri to Houston, Texas. After passing through security but before reaching the gate, he was detained and searched by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). During the search agents found an unloaded handgun in appellant's checked baggage. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subsequently brought a civil enforcement action against appellant for not declaring the weapon.
In its notice of appearance and witness list in the civil administrative action, the FAA identified Shannon Brand, a ticket counter agent for Southwest, as a witness. Southwest alleged that it expected Brand to testify that Henson purchased a one-way ticket with cash; she accepted Henson's bag and put it on the conveyor belt; Henson did not declare the weapon when he checked- in his luggage; and she later assisted the DEA in retrieving the bag. However, the FAA subsequently withdrew the civil administrative action, and the case was dismissed Henson then brought this lawsuit against Southwest alleging malicious prosecution and negligence. He claims that as he checked in his luggage, the ticket counter agent placed a 'red tag' on his checked bag. After he was taken to a secure room and searched, the DEA agents told him he had been stopped and searched because they were notified by the ticket counter that he looked suspicious, and a 'red tag' had been placed on his checked bag. He further alleges the detention, search, and subsequent FAA administrative complaint were brought about because Brand informed the DEA that he fit the profile of a potential drug courier due to his cash purchase of a one-way ticket. He claims Brand did not have any good faith basis to believe he was a drug courier, and he was the victim of "racial and pecuniary profiling."
Southwest pleaded federal preemption and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Southwest's motion for summary judgment, denied Henson's motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment that Henson take nothing. This appeal followed.
Preemption
Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides the standard of review for summary judgments. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Moore, 143 S.W.3d at 341. In reviewing summary judgments, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). Every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant is allowed, and all doubts are resolved in his favor. Id. at 548-49.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548. A defendant moving for summary judgment must either (1) disprove at least one element of the plaintiff's theory of recovery or (2) plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense. Biaggi v. Patrizio Rest., Inc., 149 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. filed) (citing Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex. 1979)).
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.
|
|