1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 -4 7 1 - CV CH ARLE S L . BAX TE R AN D APPE L L AN TS S HAR ON G . M CP HE R S ON V . SH A RO N D A A . BRO W N A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 158TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n a si ngl e i ss ue, A ppe l l ant s C har l esL. B axt erand S har on G . M cPhe r so n app ea l t he t r i al cou rt ’ s or der gr ant i ng a no- evi den ce su m m ary j udgm ent f or A p p e l l e e S h a r o n d a A . B r o wn . We a f f i r m.2 II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry O n O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 , B row n struc kB a x ter an d M c P h e rso n ’s s o n E v a n w i th herve hi cl e a s he cr os se d t he st r ee t . Ev an di ed f r om i nj ur i ess us t ai ned i n t he a c c i d e n t. I n Sept em ber2007 , Baxt eran d M cPhe r so n f i l ed su i tag ai ns tBr ow n f or w r ong f ul deat h— speci f i cal l y cl ai m i ng neg l i gent oper at i on of a m ot orvehi cl e. I n Ju ne 200 8, Br ow n f i l ed a n o- evi den cem ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent a s s e rti n g th a t th e re w a sn o e v i d e n c e o f d u ty , b re a c h , o r c a u s a ti o n to s u p p o rt Baxtera nd M cPhe r so n’ s neg l i gen cecl ai m . I n August2008 , Baxt eran d M c P h e r s o n f ile d a re s p o n s e a s s e rt in g t h a tB r o w n ’s m o t io n c o n t a in e d o n ly a l l e g a ti o n sa n d n o e v i d e n c e . T h e ya l s o a tta c h e d t o t h e i r re s p o n s e M c P h e rs o n ’s a n s w e rt o a s in g le in t e r r o g a t o r yq u e s t io n a se v id e n c et o s u p p o rtt h e irc la im . B ro w n o bj e c te d to M c P h e rs o n ’si n te rro g a to r yr e s p o n s e . T h e tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n e d B ro w n ’so bj e c ti o n sa n d g ra n te d h e r n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j udgm ent . Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I I I . Di sc us si on I n t hei rsol e i ssue, Bax t erand M cPhers on ar gue t hatt he t r i al courter r ed b yg ra n ti n g B r o w n ’sm o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t b e c a u s e “ [B ro w n ’s ] b a re M ot i on f or Sum m ary Judg m ent w as f i l ed w i t hout t he ben ef i t of de po si t i on t est i m o n y, af f i davi t s, exhi bi t s, answ er s t o i nt er r ogator i es, orany ot her2 ... The s t and ar d ofr evi ew an d bur de n of p r ooft hatBaxt eran d

M cP h e r s o n d i r e c to u ra t t e n t i o n t o i sa p p l i c a b l e t o t r a d i t i o n a l m o t i o n s f or s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. S eeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (b ),(c ). 3 su pport i ng e vi den ce . ” I n s upportoft hei rar gum ent , t heydi r ec touratt ent i on t o Ni xon v. Mr. Property Managem ent Co. , 690 S . W . 2d 5 4 6 , 5 48– 49 ( Tex. 1 9 8 5 ), in w h ic h t h e T e x a sS u p r e m e C o u rts e t so u tt h e s t a n d a r d o fre v ie w in su m m ary j udgm entca se s. S pe ci f i ca l l y, Baxt eran d M cPhe r so n s t at e t he st andar d ofr evi ew as f ol l ow s:

1. The m ovant f orsum m ary j udg m enthas t he bur den ofshow i n g thatt her e i s no genui ne i ssue ofm at er i al f ac t , an d t hati ti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entasa m att erof l a w. 2. I n deci di ng w het her t her e i s a di sput ed m at er i al f act i ssue pr ecl udi ng sum m ary j udg m ent , evi dence f avor abl e t o t he non - m ovant i s t r ue. 3 . E v e ry re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e m u s t b e i n d u l g e d in fav o r of the n o n -m o v a n t an d an yd o u b ts res o l v e d i n i ts fa v o r. Th ey f urt herst at e that“[ e] ach i ssue exp r essl y pr esent ed by m ot i on orr esponse m ustt hen be pr oven. To be ent i t l ed t o sum m ary j udg m ent , t he m ovant m ust con cl us i vel y prove a l l el em ent s ofhi s cl ai m orde f ens e. ” Baxt eran d M cPhe r so n, how eve r , m i ss t at e t he l aw appl i ca bl e t o a no- evi den cem ot i on f or su m m a ry j u d g m e n t, 2w hi ch di d not exi statt he t i m e oft he Ni xon dec i si on. The4

cor r ec tno- evi den ces um m ary j udgm ents t and ar d ofr evi ew and bur den ofpr oof ar e as f ol l ow s. A f t eran ad equ at e t i m e f ordi sc ove ry, t he part y w i t houtt he bur den of proo f m a y , withou t

presenti

ng evidence , m ovef ors um m ary j udgm enton t he gr ound t hatthe r e i s no e vi den cet o s upportan es se nt i alel em entoft he non m ovant’ s cl ai m ordef e n se. Tex. R. C i v. P. 16 6a( i ) . The m ot i on m ust s p e c i fi c a l l ys ta te t h e e l e m e n ts f o r w h i c h th e re i sn o e v i d e n c e . Id. ;Johns on v. Bre wer & Pr itch a rd , P. C. , 7 3 S .W .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e tri a l c o u rt m ustg r antt he m ot i on un l es s t he nonm ova ntpr oduc ess um m ary j udgm ent e v i d e n c e th a t ra i s e sa g e n u i n e i s s u eo f m a te ri a l fa c t. S ee Te x . R. Ci v. P. 1 6 6 a(i ) & c m t.; S w . El ec . Power

Co. v. Grant, 73 S. W . 3d 211, 215 ( Tex. 2 0 0 2 ). W h e n re v i e w i n g a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t, w e e x a m i n e th e e n ti re r e c o r d in t h e lig h tm o s tf a v o r a b le t o t h en o n m o v a n t , in d u lg in g e v e ryre a s o n a b le i n fe re n c e a n d re s o l v i n g a n yd o u b ts a g a i n s t th e m o ti o n . Sudanv. Su dan , 199 S . W . 3d 29 1, 29 2 ( Tex . 20 06 ) . I ft he nonm ovantbr i ngsf orward m ore thana sci nti l l a o f p robative evidence t hatr ai ses a genu i ne i ssue ofm at er i al f act , t hen a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t i sn o t p ro p e r. Moore v. K MartCor p. , 981 S . W . 2d 26 6, 26 9 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A nt oni o 1 99 8, p et . d eni ed) . W e r evi ew a no- evi den ces um m ary j udgm ent f orev i den cet hatw oul d e nab l e r ea so nab l e a nd3 ... A l t hou gh B axt erand M cPhers on do n otexpr essl y chal l enge t he t r i al

co urt ’ s r ul i ngson Br ow n’ s obj ec t i ons , t heyi m pl i edl y do s o i n t hei rar gum ent th a t B r ow n fai l ed t o p r od uc e ev i de nc e i n su pp ortof her m oti on f or sum m a ry j u d g m e n t. 5 fa i r-m i n d e d j u ro rsto d i ffe r i n th e i r c o n c l u s i o n s . Ham i lton v. W

i l son , 249 S. W . 3d 425, 426 ( Tex. 2008 ) ( ci t i ng City of Kel ler v. W i l son , 168 S. W . 3d 802, 8 2 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 )). H er e, Br ow n f i l ed a n o- evi den cem ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entan d th e re fo re w a sn o t th e p a rtyw i th th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f o r p ro d u c ti o n . S eeTex. R. Ci v. P. 166a( i ) . A no - ev i de nc e sum m ary j udgm ents hi ft s t he bur den of p ro d u c ti o n to th e n o n m o v a n ts — h e re , B a x te r a n d M c P h e rs o n . S ee Mo o re , 981 S . W . 2d at26 9. Baxterand M cPhers on, t her ef o re, h ad t o pr odu ce evi dence su f f i ci entt o r ai sea gen ui ne i ss ue ofm at er i alf ac tast o d uty, b r ea ch, an d ca us at i on. Thei rr es pons e, how eve r , doe s nots pec i f i ca l l y a ddr es s ea ch el em ent c h a l l e n g e d b yB ro w n i n h e r n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n a sre q u i re d b yru l e 1 6 6 a (i ). S ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (i ). T h e o n l ye v i d e n c e p u t fo rth b yB a x te r a n d M c P h e rs o n w a sM c P h e rs o n ’s ans w ert o a s i ngl e i nt er r oga t ory qu es t i on. 3 H ow ever , answ er s t o i nt er r ogator i es m a yb e u s e d o n l ya g a i n s t th e re s p o n d i n g p a rty . S eeTe x. R. Ci v. P. 197. 3. M c P h e rs o n m a y n o t u s e h e r o w n i n te rro g a to ry re s p o n s e a se v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt4 ... F u rth e rm o re , e v e n i f B a x te r a n d M c P h e rs o n c o u l d u s e M c P h e rs o n ’s

i nt er r oga t ory r es pons e, t heyf ai l ed t o s pec i f y w hi ch el em en t , i fan y, t he re s p o n s e s u p p o rte d . See Estate of Bradbur

n v. Sawko , No . 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 0 1 9 2 - CV , 2 0 0 3 W L2 1 3 5 9 5 1 4 , a t* 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.) ( m em . op. ) ( i ndi cat i ng no nm ovant has b u rden t o expl ai n how t he evi dence ra i s e s a m a te ri a lfa c t i s s u e fo r th e c h a l l e n g e d e l e m e n ts ). 6 h e rc l a i m. 4 See id. ; Y ates v. Fi

sher, 9 8 8 S .W .2 d 7 3 0 , 7 3 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); Belteton v. D esco S teel Erector s & Concrete, I

nc. , 2 22 S. W . 3d 600, 609 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2007 , no p et . ) . Bec aus e Ba xt er a nd M cPhe r so n f ai l ed t o r ai sea f ac ti ss ue by p r oduc i ng m ore t han a sc i nt i l l a o fpr oba t i ve e v i d e n c e o n e a c h e l e m e n t o f th e i r n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m , w e h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt p ro p e rl yg ra n te d B ro w n ’sn o -e v id e n c e m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. S ee Mo o re , 9 8 1 S .W .2 d a t 2 6 9 . A c c o rd i n g l y , w e o v e rru l e B a x te r a n d M c P h e rs o n ’s sol e i ssue. I V . Concl us i on H avi ng over r ul ed Bax t eran d M cPhers on’ s sol e i ssue, w e af f i r m t he t r i al c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M C C O Y, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DEL I VERE D: J un e 18, 2009