### NUM BER 13-06- 240- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
EL TON A DA M CEK , ETA L., A pp ellan ts,
v . REY NOL DS M ETA LS C OM PA NY, ETA L., A pp ellees
.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 3rd Dist rict C ou rt of W ha rton C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ezT her e ar e ni net y - sev en appel l ant s: El t on a nd Hel en Adam cek; R oset t a Ander son; John and Al v en 1 Ashf or d; John Ashf or d, Jr

. ; Est herBal l ; El oi se Bar nes, i nd i v i dual l y and nextf r i end ofJana y sha Bar nes; Ver non C ae s ar I I I ; N ori s ha H al l ow ay an d S he rpi ri c e H al l ow ay ; E vel y n B arn es ; A l i c e B ay l or; E l l a M ae B e l l ; P ea rl B en ne t t ; C ha rl ott e B row n; E dd i e a nd G e rti e B ro w n ; Ke vi n B row n, i nd i vi du al l y an d a s ne x t fr i en d o f T ' E rr a Br own and KeVon Br own; M ar y F. Br own; N i esha Br own; D ar l ene C al l i s; Anni e C ash; M cC oy C ash; C har l es a n d V io le t C e a s a r ; A r tie a n d R u th E llis ; L o r e n z o E llis ; C h a r lie a n d J e a n F a n ie l; L e n w o o d G ib s o n ; N ic o le G r eel y ; W i l l i e G ree n; M ar y H ar gr ov e; Zedr i ck H ar gr ov e; Ar j or i e Hay nes; Kat hy H ear d; R ober t and Jessi ca H e a r s e , in d iv id u a lly a n d n e x t f r ie n d o fK e yya r ia R o b e r ts ; O r a M . H e n d e r s o n ; F r a n k a n d R u th H e r r in g ; P e r c illa H o w r a y; A r b o d e e n J a m e s ; M a r th a J o h n s o n ; K a r r ie J o n e s ; A n d r e w K im b le ; L e e a n d P h yllis K im b le ; D o n a ld Li l y ; S ha ne t t a M al on e; A ri t ha M ars ha l l ; Le van an d P erl i e M ars ha l l ; G eo rgi a M i l l er; M el i s s a M i l l er; Le e E dw ard M ille r , J r . a n d B e r n ic e T e r r e ll; A .D . M o o r e , J r .; E lle n P a r s o n ; F r e d d ie a n d D in a h R o b e r ts ; J a m e s a n d M in n ie R ober t s; N at hani el R ober t s; T

. L. R ob i ns on ; R al auni e Sel f ; Vi ct orSi m m ons, Jr

. ; Br y an Spar k s; R osal i nd T a ylo r; F ra n k i e T e rr e l l ; G w e n d o l y n T e rr e l l , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d n e x t frie n d o f W h i tn e y T e rr e l l ; J o a m i k a T e r r e ll, in d iv i d u a l l y a n d n e x t f r i e n d o fC a m a r y M c C o w a n ; M o l l i e T e r r e l l ; E l o i s e T h o m p s o n ; L a K e s h i a T h o m p s o n ; M a r ie T ho m ps on ; T ho m as T ho m ps on ; Z ul a T ho m ps on , i n d i v i d u al l y an d n ex t fr i en d o f Ja da T ho m ps on ; D ora Vasquez ; H el en W ar d; C l ar a W ashi ngt on; G er al di ne W ashi ngt on; Phy l l i s W ashi ngt on, i ndi v i dual l y and next f r i end ofT r oy W ashi ngt on a nd T r oy l a W ashi ngt on; W al t erand Bet t y W ashi ngt on; and Bar bar a W i l l i am s. 2 App ellant s, in a conso lidate d law suit, brou ght v arious cau ses of action against 1 appel lee s, Rey nol ds Me tal s C ompany , Al coa, Inc ., RMC Extr usi on, I nc. , Bo n L. Campo Limi ted Partnershi p, Tredeg ar C or porati on, a nd W hittak er C or porati on, a ll eg ing proper ty damag e, bo dil y

inju ri es, and puni ti v e damages

. By one is sue, appel lan ts cont end t hat t he trial court erred in g rantin g a no -ev iden ce sum ma ry judgmen t in favor of a ppe llees be cause they rais ed more tha n a sci nti ll a of ev ide nce that appel lee s damag ed their proper ty under th e th eo r i es o f nu i s an c e, n eg l i g en c e, a nd g ros s n eg l i g en c e. W e affi r m. I. Bac kg ro und This consol ida ted l aw sui t i nv olv ing ov er 1,20 0 pl ain ti ffs, inc lud ing the nin ety -s ev en appel lan ts, w as filed after the d is cov er y of g ro undw ater

co ntami nati on by

a c hemic al cal led Tri chl oroethy len e ( TCE) i n an area s outhw estof El C ampo, W har ton Co u n ty , Tex as. I n the law suit, appe llants alleg ed that the T CE origi nat ed at an alumin um extrusion facility in El Ca m p o – o wne d and operated by one or more of the appel lee s a nd ot her enti ti es at
v ar iou s t imes

.Pl ai nt i ff s, D el or es an d M ar t i n Schnur pel , wer e no t i ncl uded i n t he t r i al cour t ' s or derof sev er ance, 2 but t heyar e l i st ed a s app el l ant s. Based on o urr ev i ew oft he r ecor d, we con cl ude t ha t the y w ere l i st ed a s a p p e lla n ts b y m is ta k e a n d a r e n o t p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l.

It a p p e a r s th a t a p p e lla n ts m is ta k e n ly lis te d " tr e s p a s s " in s te a d o f " g r o s s n e g lig e n c e " in th e title to th e ir 3 subst ant i v e po i nt of

er r orand i n t hei r pr ay er
. S e e M a rtin e z v . E l P a s o C o u n ty , 218 S. W

. 3d 8 41 , 845 ( T ex. A p p .– E l P a s o 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d i s m 'd ) (p ro v i d i n g th a t w h e n w e re v i e w a c i v i l m a tte r, w e h a v e " n o d i s c re ti o n to consi der an i ssue not r ai sed i n t he a ppel l ant ' s br i ef , ev en i ft he e nds o fj ust i ce so r equi r e. " )

. T her e i s no ot her m ent i on, br i ef i ng, orsupp or t f ort r espass i n t hei r ar gum ent

. T o t he e xt ent t hat app el l ant s at t em pt t o ar gue th a t t h e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in g r a n tin g t h e n o - e v id e n c e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t in f a v o r o fa p p e lle e s o n th e irc la im oft r espass, t heyhav e not pr ov i ded a cl earand conci se ar gum ent w i t h ci t at i ons t o au t hor i t y and t he r ecor d. T h e re fo re , th e y h a v e w a i v e d th a t a rg u m e n t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1( h)

. W e not e t hat t hi s C our t r equest ed and r ecei v ed r e- br i ef i ng; howev er , appel l ant s' am ended br i ef off er ed no ci t at i ons or ar gum ent s on a cl ai m of t r espass. 3 On Novembe r 1, 2 005 , w ithou t statin g the groun ds, the t rial court grant ed a ppe llees'
v ar iou s n o- ev ide nce moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. The tr ial co urt al so g ra nted Tredeg ar 's and Al coa' s mot ion s for tradi ti onal su mmary

j udg ment. On Apr il 20, 2006, the tr ial co urt ordered s ev era n ce o f the nin ety -s ev en pl ain ti ffs from the or ig ina l cas e. O n 2 appeal from t he s ev erance, appel lan ts ch a lle n ge o nly the tr ial co urt' s g ra nt of the noevidence su mm aryjudgmen ts on th eir claims of nuisan ce, n e gl igence, an d gross neg li g ence. 3 II. Tredeg ar 's and Al coa' s M oti ons for Tradi ti onal Summar y Ju dg ment Appel lan ts do notco ntend that the t ri al cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng the moti ons for trad it io nal su mmary

j udg ment fil ed by

Tred eg ar

and Al coa. See Martinez v. El Paso Cou nty, 218 S.W .3d 8 41, 8 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2007, pet. dis m'd) (p ro v idi ng that w hen
we re view a c iv il matte r, w e hav e "no dis creti on to co nsi der an i ss ue notrais ed i n the appel lan t' s b ri ef, ev en i f the ends of jus ti ce so re q uire.")

. On appeal , Tredeg ar and Al coa
arg ue th at t he j udg ment i n the ir fav or shoul d be aff ir med on that g ro und. W e ag re e and af f irm the trial cou rt's granting of Tred egar's and Alco a's mo tions for tradition al sum ma ry jud g ment. See Dow Che m . Co. v. Francis , 46 S.W .3d 2 37, 2 42 ( Tex . 200 1) ( a f f irming4

summar y judg ment if any

of m ov ant' s theor ies are meri tor iou s w hen t he tr ial co urt di d not spec ify the g ro unds itreli ed on for i ts ru li ng ). III

. Standa rd of Rev iew Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 166a( i) prov ide s t hat "a par ty w it hout present ing
sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce ma y move for sum ma ry

judgmen t on th e ground th at th ere is no e v ide nce of one or more es sent ial el em e n ts o f a c la im o r defense on w hic h an adv erse par

ty w oul d hav e the burden of proof." T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(i). In orde r to av oid the no-evide n c e summ aryjudgmen t, the non mo v antmustprodu ce mo re than a scintilla of proba ti v e ev ide nce that ra is es an i ss ue of mater ial fact o n e a ch e le m e nt c hal len g ed. Oasis Oil Cor p. v. K och Ref . C o. , 60 S.W .3d 248, 252 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, pet. d eni ed) ; seeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( i) ; Ma ck T ru ck s v . T am ez , 2 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 2 , 5 8 2 (T e x. 2006)

. Mo re than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts w hen t he ev id e n ce " ris e s to a lev el that
w oul d enabl e reason abl e and fair-mi nded pe opl e to differ i n the ir co nclu sio n s." Merrell Dow Ph a rms., I n c. v. Havner , 9 5 3 S. W .2 d 70 6 , 7 1 1 (T e x. 19 9 7 ). W h e n revie wing a
no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y jud g ment, w e cons ide r all of t he ev ide nce in th e ligh t
mo st favorable to th e no n-mo v ant"creditin g evidence favorable to th at pa rty if reason able jurors c oul d, and dis re g ardin g cont ra ry ev ide nce unl ess reason abl e j urors c oul d not ." City of K eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 823 (Tex. 2005 ). W e w ill af f irm the summ ary jud g ment i f anyof the mov ant' s g ro unds are mer it o rio u s w hen t he tr ial co urt has not spec ified the g ro und or g ro unds itreli e d on for i ts ru li ng
. Dow Chem . C o. , 46 S.W .3d a t 242.A p p e l l e e s a rg u e th a t a p p e l l a n ts ' s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e w a s i n c o m p e te n t. A p p e l l a n ts 4 r es pond t hat t hei r s um m ar y j udgem ent evi denc e w as com pet ent

. For pur pos es oft he a nal y s i s her ei n, w e a s s u m e , w i th o u t d e c i d i n g , t h a t a p p e l l a n ts s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e w a s c o m p e te n t. 5 IV. Di sc uss ion By t h e i r s o l e i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d i n g ra nti ng a no evidence sum ma ry

judgmen t in favor of a ppe llees. Ap pellan ts assert th at th ey raised m ore than a s ci nti ll a of e vide n ce for t hei r cl aim that appel lee s d amag ed th eir proper ty under theor ies of nui sanc e, ne g li g ence, and g ro ss neg li g ence. 4 A. Appl ic abl e Law "A ' nui sanc e' is a c ondi ti on th at s ubst anti all y inter feres w it h the use and enj oy ment
o f l a n d bycausing unrea sona ble disco mfort or ann oyance to person s of ordinary
sens ibi li ti es attempt ing to use and enj oy i t." Holubec v. Br

andenbur

ger , 58 S.W .3d 2 01, 210 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2001) , re v' d on other

gr ounds , 111 S.W .3d 3 2 ( Tex . 200 3)

. In order to recov er

on a nui sanc e c lai m, the defendant must hav e g enerall y engag ed in one of three ki nds of acti v ity : (1 ) int enti onal i nv asi on of anoth er 's i nterest s; (2 ) neg li g ent i nv asi on of another's i nterest ; or (3 ) other condu ct, cul pabl e becau se abnor mal and outof pla ce in it s
sur ro undi ng s, that inv ades another's int erest s. Agui lar v. Mor ale s , 162 S.W .3d 8 25, 8 36 (Te x . App .–E l Paso 20 05, p et. d enie d). A nuisan ce ma y arise bycausing (1) phy sical harm to prop erty, such as by the encroa chm entof a dam a gi n g subst ance or by the pro perty's dest ru cti on; ( 2) physi cal har m to a person on his proper ty from an ass aul t on his se nses
or by othe r personal i nju ry ; and (3 ) emoti onal har m to a person from the depr iv ati on of the enj oy ment of hi s p ro per ty throug h fear, apprehens ion , or l oss of peace of mind. Id.6

A claim of

neglig ence requires that th ere is a legal duty owed to ano the r, a breach of t hat duty and damag es prox imat ely ca used by

the breach. D. Housto n, In c. v. Love , 92 S.W .3d 4 50, 4 54 ( Tex . 200 2)

. Ordin ar y neg li g ence is el ev ated to g ro ss neg li g ence by "the mental att it ude of the defendant." Burk Royalty Co. v. W alls , 6 1 6 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 1 , 9 2 2 (T e x. 1981)

. A findi ng of g ro ss neg li g ence neces si tates a find ing of ordin ar y neg li g ence. She ll Oi l Co. v. H um

phr ey, 8 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 17 0, 17 4 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 4, w rit den ied). B. Ana ly sis

1. Ident ific ati on of Spec ificEl ements i n N o- Ev ide nce Mo ti on Appel lan ts firs t c omplai n tha t e a ch o f the no- ev ide nce moti ons filed by appel lee s shou ld have bee n den ied becau se the y cont aine d not hing mo re th a n concluso ry sta tements and g eneral chal len g es to appel lan t' s v ar iou s cl aims

. W e dis ag re e. Each noev ide nce moti on ex pli ci tl y as ser ted t hat t here w as no ev ide nce for eac h s peci fic e lement of appell ants ' caus es of acti on for nui sanc e, ne g li g ence, and g ro ss neg li g ence. See Johns on v

. F elt s , 140 S.W .3d 7 02, 7 06 ( Tex

. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2004, pet. deni ed) (co n cludi ng thatthe no- ev ide nce moti on i denti fied and address ed a spec ificel ement of appel la n t' s ca u ses of act ion w hen app ell ee c ontende d i n her moti on th at t here w as no
ev ide nce of caus ati on)

. W e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lee s' no- ev ide nce moti ons w ere not
conc lus or

y and g eneral; therefore, the t ri al cour t shoul d nothav e deni ed th e moti ons on that basi s. SeeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( i) cmt

.Appel l ees ch al l enge t he v al i di t y o f Pri ck et t ' s aff i dav i t and i dent i fy i t as a do cum ent

. However , f or 5 th e p u rp o s e s o f th e a n a l y s i s , w e w i l l re fe r to i t a s a n a ff i d a v i t. 7 2. Nuisance By a broa d cont ent ion, app ellant s a lso claim, withoutsp ecif ic cita tion to the record
or auth or ity , t hat more tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce e xist s for thei r cl aim of nuis ance. App ellant s assert tha t the y "prod uced suf

f icient evid ence to dem onst rate th at th eir individual prope rties [w ere] im pact ed a nd/ or conta min ate d by T CE" throu gh the af f idavit of thei r tes ti fyi ng ex per

t, Thomas Pr ic kett, w ho clai ms t hat h e "demons trated an addi ti onal plu me, w hic h had it s g enesi s i n a l eak from a s ew er l ine ." Ap pel lee s respon d tha t t he aff ida v it does not prov ide any ev ide nce that any

par ti cul ar appel lan t had an int erestthat 5
w as af fecte d by the TCE conta min ation . W e agree w ith ap pellee s. I n h i s a ffi d a v i t , P r i c k ett re fe rs t o a m a p t h a th e a l l e g e s s h o w s w h e re t h e p l a i n t i ffs li ste d i n the Adamc ek Amended P eti ti on l iv e. Howev er , Pr ic kett does not sug g est that any of the appe ll ants ow n an int eresti n the pro p e rty w it hin the addi ti onal pl ume he "d em onst rated ," an d Prickett do es notd esignate which p rope rties o r whose intere sts w ere in fact affected by

the TCE u nderhi s t heor y
. At b est , t his ev ide nce mayhav e c re ated a
mere sus pic ion thatso me of the ap pel lan ts hav e an in te re st in the a re as ci rc led on t he map. This su spi ci on, how ev er , does not ri se "to a l ev el that w oul d enabl e reason abl e and fair-mind ed peop le to differ in the ir conclu sions" tha t app ellant s' intere sts w ere in fact impacted or cont aminat ed by the TCE a s t hey cl aim. See Mer

re ll Dow Phar

m s., Inc ., 953 S.W .2 d a t 711. Therefore, w e c annot conc lud e tha t app ell ants produce d more tha n a
sc int il la of proba ti v e ev ide nce that ra is ed an is sue of materi al fact, see Oasis Oi l Cor p. , 608

S.W .3 d a t 2 5 2 , t h a t a p p e l l e e s e n g a g e d i n i n t e n t i o n a l , n e g l i g e n t o r o t h e r c o n d u ct that
a m o u n t e d t o a n in va s io n o f a p p e ll a n t s ' in t e re s t s o r c a u s e d p h ys ic a l h a rm t o t h e ir p ro p e rt y. See A gui

lar , 162 S.W .3d a t 836

. Appel lee s' no- ev ide nce moti ons for s ummary j udg ment
w ere proper ly

g ra nted w it h respect t o appel lan ts' cl aim of nuis ance. See D ow Ch em . C o. , 46 S. W .3d a t 242

. 3. Neglig ence Next, w it hout ci ti ng to the record or prov idi ng any

auth or ity , app ell ants arg ue th at
more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide n ce e xist s for thei r cl aim of neg li g ence on th e el ements of duty , breach of duty , and damag es. On appeal , how ev er , app ell ants do n ot c ontend that they produce d more tha n a sc int il la of ev ide nce ra is ing an is sue of materi al fact reg ardin g the ele ment of prox imat e caus ati on. D. Housto n, In c. , 92 S.W .3d a t 454 ( setti ng out the ele ments of neg li g ence as duty , breach, prox imat e c ause, and damag es)

. See id . By faili ng to chal len g e the tr ial cour t' s fin din g on p ro x imat e c ause, appel lan ts hav e w aiv ed any
er ro r. See D all

as v. Dal las Mor nin g News, L.P. , 180 S.W .3d 921, 92 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 200 5, no pet. ) ( "If

the ap pellan t doe s not cha llenge one of the ground s for sum ma ry jud g ment, the judg ment maybe a ff ir med on t hat g ro und al one.") ; see als o M ar ti nez , 218 S.W .3d a t 844 ( "W hen rev iew ing a c iv il matte r, an a ppel late court has no di sc re ti on to consid er an issue notraise d in the a ppe llant's brief , even if t he e nds o f

justice require it."). Therefore, t he tr ial co urt did not e rr i n g ra nti ng the no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment i n fav or of appell ees on th e bas is thatthere w as n o e vide n ce o f prox imat e c ausat ion

. See D ow Che m . C o. , 46 S.W .3d a t 242

. More over, be cause we h ave co nclud ed tha t the trial court prop erly g rante d the no-evidence summ aryjudgmen ts as to th e ne gli gen c e claim, there9

coul d be no findi ng of g ro ss neg li g ence. See Shell Oil C o. , 880 S.W .2d a t 174 ; see a lso Bur k R oyalty Co. , 616 S.W .2d a t 922

. 4. Sti g ma D amag es Appel lan ts further cont end, w it hout ci tati on to the re cord or auth or ity , t hat t he tr ial
c ou rt w as i nc or rect i n g ran ti ng ap pe l l ee s ' mo ti on s for s um ma r y j ud g me nto n th ei r

c l ai ms fo r s t ig m a d a m a ge s
. Be c a u s e a p p e ll a n t s , e ve n a f t e r t h is C o u rtre qu e s t e d r e -b ri e f in g, h a ve not p ro v ide d a c lea r and c onci se arg ument with ci tati ons to au thor ity and the record on thei r ass erti on of s ti g ma damag es, they hav e w aiv ed th is arg ument. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h). W e ov er ru le appel lan ts' so le is sue. See D ow Ch em . C o. , 46 S.W .3d a t 242. V. Con cl usi on W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 2 4th d ay

of Apr il , 200 8.