John T. Boy d, C hie f Just ic e ( Ret .) , Se ven th C o urt of Appea ls , s itti ng by 1 ass ig nment. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. §7 5.002( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 8)

. NO. 07-07 -043 5-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL E SEPTEM BER26, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ GRACE W ILL IAMS, AP PEL LANT

v. CI TY OF LITTLEFI ELD , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 15 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L AM B CO UNT Y; TH NO. 164 98; HON. FELIX KLEIN, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK, JJ., a nd BO YD , S.J. 1 In th is p r os e a ppeal , app ell ant G ra ce W il li ams s eeks rev ersal of a tak e- nothi ng s u m m a ry j u d gm e n tin fa vo r o f a p p e ll e e Ci t y o f

L it t le f ie ld (t h e Ci t y). Fo r r e a s o n s we herein after sta te, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. In t he sui t under ly ing thi s appeal , appel lan t soug ht to recov er damag es becau se of the C ity ’s al leg ed neg li g ence in caus ing raw sew ag e to flow

from a ci ty

se w er l ine i nto h er home. As a resul t, she ass erted, she cont ra cte d the H epati ti s C v iru s a n d s uffered2

proper ty damag e as w ell

. In s eeki ng that re cov er y , she adv anced theor ies of neg li g ence, nui sanc e, an d trespas s. In Janua ry 2006, w hic h w as about a y ear after the sui t w as filed , her cou nsel sou ght, and w as granted , leave to w ithdra w f ro m rep resen ting her. No atto rney has subse quently appe ared for app ellant . Hence, th is appe al is pr o s e. On M ay 3, 2007, in seek ing su mmary j udg ment, the C ity

fil ed tradi ti onal and no evidence motio ns. In doing so, i t supp orted its traditio nal motion w ith the af f idavit of Dav id Hod g es, M .D

. Acc ordin g to his cur ri cul um v it ae, he is board c erti fied i n i nter nal medi ci ne
w it h a s ubspe ci alty

i n g ast ro enterolo g y . In hi s a ff ida v it , D r. H odges av ow ed th at t he Hep ati ti s C v ir us “c an l iv e out si de th e human body i n the natu ra l env ironment for onl y a few hours, and doe s n ot s ur v iv e or liv e in treated or

untreated sew ag e.” H e al so opi ned t hat appel lan t di d notco ntractH epati ti s C “ from ex posure to ra w se w ag e as she all eg es in her lawsui t.” R ather , he aff ir med, based in par t upon his re v iew of ap pel lan t’ s M HM R (Tex as Dep artment of Ment al Hea lt h and Me ntal Re ta rd ati on) records, the “l ik ely ” caus e of appel lan t’ s c ontract ing H epati ti s C w as int ra v enous dr ug us e. Mi chael W ill ia m son, the Ci ty ’s w ater

su per int endent, av er re d by aff ida v it that a few min utes after

appel lan t repor

ted th e s ew ag e ba c k up , he i ns pe c te d he r h om e an d fou nd c l ea r

w at er i n ap pe l l an t’ s b at hroo m. He did no t det ect an y

“fo ul odo r or sew age.” On Ma y 3, the d ay

the Ci ty ’s moti ons w ere fil ed, t he tr ial co urt s chedu led a he ar ing for J une 11, 2007. O n M ay 4, 2007, the record s how s a ppel lan t recei v ed not ic e of the he ar i ng d at e by

l ette r from t he C i ty ’ s c ou ns el

. S he d i d no t fi l e a res po ns e to t he C ity ’s moti ons and did not arr iv e on June 11 in time for the heari ng on those moti ons. W it hout spec ify ing a g ro und, the t ri al cour t g ra nted a tak e- nothi ng su mmary j udg ment i n fav or

of t h e Ci t y.The new ly di sc ov ered ev ide nce to w hic h appell ant refers w as not a ttac hed t o her 2 moti on. 3 Appel lan t f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g a n e w t r i a l i n w h i c h s h e a s s e rt e d a n e x p l a n a t ion for her unti mely

appearance at t he s ummary j udg ment hea ri ng and cont ended s he poss ess ed new ly

di sc ov ered ev iden ce t h a t woul d rebut the C ity ’s as ser ti on th at s he cont ra cte d H epati ti s C from int ra v enous dr ug us e. Parenthet ic all y , app ell ant’ s mot ion for
new tr ial track s the eq uit abl e re q uirements for a new tr ial after

a de fault j udg ment i terated in Cr addock v

. Su nshi ne Bus Li nes , 134 Te x . 388 , 133 S .W .2d 1 24 (193 9). How ever, in Car penter v. Cim ar

ro n H ydr ocar bons, 9 8 S

. W

. 3 d 682 , 683 -84 (Te x . 200 2), the Court ins tr uct ed th at Craddo ck doe s not ap pl y i n c a s e s su ch as this on e in w hich sum ma ry jud g ment i s g ra nted w hen t he non-m o v ant fai led to ti mely respon d after

recei v ing due not ice of the he a ri n g and had “ an o ppo rtunity to emp loy the mea ns ou r civ il procedu re ru les m ake av ail abl e to alt er the deadl ine s Rul e 166a impos es. ” Althou g h the Craddo ck sta ndard has no appl ic ati on here, in her moti on for new

tr ial , app ell ant h as adv anced the cont enti on of new ly

di sc ov ered ev ide nce, so w e w il l cons ide r that cont enti on. 2 In a si ng l e i s s ue , ap pe l l an t arg ue s t he t r i al c ou rt er red i n g ran ti ng i ts s um ma ry judgme nt be cause she ha d a valid reaso n for not ma king a time ly arriv al for the su mm ary jud g ment hea ri ng and she poss ess ed ev ide nce that w oul d hav e prec lud ed that j udg ment. In ad v anci ng that arg ument, she cont ends that ev ide nce w oul d neg ate a ny cl aim that she used dr ug s a nd th at he r cl aim is suppo rt ed by dr ug sc re eni ng re sul ts dati ng from t he mi d19 80 ' s . H ow ev er , to w ar ran t c on s i de rat i on b y t he t r i al c ou rt, s uc h ev i de nc e, i n prop er for m, shoul d hav e been filed by appel lan t in the tr ial cour t at lea st sev en day s pr ior to the d ay

of the summ aryjudgmen t hea ring. T ex. R . Civ . P. 16 6a(c).4

M oreov er , ata s ummary j udg ment hea ri ng , t he co u rtco nsi ders t he arg ument of
couns el but does not recei v e new ev ide nce. See Jack

B. Angl in Co. v. T

ipp s , 842 S.W .2d 266, 269 n. 4 ( Tex . 199 2) ( oral tes ti mony i s n ot c onsi dered ata s ummary j udgm e nt hea ring) ; Gi

ese v. NC NBT

ex. F or ney Bank

ing C tr ., 882 S. W .2d 7 76, 7 8 3 T ex . Ap p.– Dal las 1994, no w ri t)

. Addi ti onal ly , a hear in g on a s ummary j udg ment moti on i s n eit her
re qui re d be fo re a co u rtm a y rule on th e m o ti o n n o r a re th e pa rt ie s e n ti tl e d to a h e a rin g. See In re Am . Media Con sol. , 1 2 1 S. W .3 d 70 , 7 4 (T e x. Ap p .– Sa n An to n io 20 0 3 , o rig. proceed ing ) (p arti es are not e nti tl ed to a he ar ing ); see alsoT ex . R. Ci v . P. 166a(c ). The dat e of the sum ma ry

judgmen t hea ring or t he su bm ission of the m otion w ithou t hea ring is
cr uci al, how ev er , as i t fix es the dates of the deadl ine s estab li shed by Rule 166a(c ). The fact th at app ellantd id nota rriv e at th e cou rthou se be fore the comp letion of the sum ma ry judgme nt he aring is, the refore, irrelevant to the trial court’s decision on the City ’s motio ns. Appel lan t frames her arg ument here as if she pos ses sed the e v ide nce in q uest ion on th e da y of the hea ring. How ever, ev en if she ha d no t discovered the ev iden ce w ithin
sev en day s o f the s ummary j udg ment hea ri ng , s he c oul d hav e s oug ht a cont inu ance of the h e a ri n g d a t e o r sh e c o u ld h a ve s o u gh t le a ve t o f il e t h e e vid e n c e o u to f t im e . T e x. R. Ci v. P. 1 66a; Benchm ar

k Bank v. Cro wd er

, 919 S.W .2d 657 , 663 (Tex. 1996 ) ( an u ntim ely respo nse m ay notbe con sidered u n le s s t h e co urt grant s leave to f ile). Appellan t did neith er. W e are m indf ul of t he fact tha t app ellantis not an at torne y and app ears pr

o s e. Ho w ever, w e mu st also be mind f ul tha t a non -lawy er pro se l i ti g an t i s h el d to t he s am e st andards as a l ic ensed att or ney . See Holt v. F.F. Enters. , 990 S.W .2d

. 756 , 759 (T e x. App .–A ma rill o 19 98, pet. den ied).5

A d d it io n a ll y, if

a p p e ll a n td id n o td is c o ve r t h e e vid e n c e s h e n o w a s s e rt s wo u ld h a ve p re c l u d e d su mm a r

y j u d g me n tu n t i l a ft e r

t h e j u d g me n t , i tw a s n e c e s s a r y fo r h e r t o s a t i s fy the t ri al cour

t i n her moti on for new

tr ial that : 1) the ev ide nce came t o her kn ow led g e after the t ri al; 2) i n the ex erci se of due di li g ence, the ev ide nce coul d nothav e been produce d earlier; 3) the newl y

discovered evi den ce is not cum ulative; and 4 ) t h e e vid ence is so mater ial thati t wou ld probabl y produce a di fferent resul t i n a n ew tr ial

. Jacks on v

. Va n W ink le, 660 S.W .2d 807 ,80 9 (Te x . 198 3), o v e r r u le d o n o t h e r g r o u n ds b y Mo r it z v . Preiss, 121 S

. W

. 3 d 715 , 721 (Tex. 2003 ). Each of the a bov e el ements mustbe e sta bli shed by aff ida v it

. In re Th o ma , 873 S.W .2d 477, 512 (Tex . Rev . Trib. 1994)

. No suc h aff ida v itw as prov ide d by

appell ant. Althou g h the record does not show that the tr ial co urt had a he ar ing on appe ll ant’ s moti on for new tr ial , no suc h hear ing i s req uired w hen t here are no aff ida v it s suppo rt ing the g ro unds she adv anced in the moti on. See T exac o, Inc. v. Pennz

oil C o., 729 S.W .2d 7 68, 8 50 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 D is t.] 1987, w ri t ref’d n.r .e.) ( all eg ati on of j uror st misco ndu ct). The deni al of a moti on for new tr ial i s measured by an abuse of dis creti on s tandard. In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d 112, 114 (Tex

. 2006)

. That s tandard i s n ot w hether , i n the opi nio n of the review ing court, the trial court could have grant ed a new tri al. Rathe r, it presents a q uest ion w hether

that cour

t act ed w it hout re ferenc e to g uid ing ru les or pr inc ipl es. Downer
v. Aquam ar

ineOper ator s, Inc ., 701 S.W .2d 2 38, 2 41- 42 (T e x . 198 5)

. In reachi ng the decision w het her the trial court abu sed its discretion , w e are caut ione d tha t simply becau se that cour t dec ide d an is sue w it hin i ts dis creti on differentl y than w oul d the rev iew ing co urt, that is not an abus e of the tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on. Id . at242.6

Inde ed, ev en if appel lan t had proper ly present ed ev ide nce that she w as not a t t he time of the sewage incident , nor ha d she ev er bee n, a use r of ill icit i n t ra ve n o us drugs, it
w oul d nothav e affect ed th e out come o f the c ase. I n i ts no ev ide nce moti on, a mong othe r thi ng s, the C ity

ch all eng ed the suffici ency of ap pel lan t’ s ev ide nce of c ausat ion of damag es under eac h the or

y of re cov er

y sh e al leg ed. Th e b u rd en th e mov ant u nder a no ev ide nce summar y j udg ment bea rs i s b y

now ax iom a ti c. If proper ly

rais ed, a tr ial co urt mus t g ra nt t he moti on unl ess the non- mov ant p ro d u ces more tha n a s ci nti ll a of probati v e ev ide nce ra is ing a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact. Less than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts w hen th e e vide n ce is s o w eak as to do no mo re than create a mere surmise or susp icion of a fact. More tha n a scintilla of ev iden ce ex is ts w hen t he ev ide nce ri ses to a l ev el that w oul d enabl e reason abl e a n d fair-mi nded peo ple to dif

fer in their conclu sions. W here , as here , the trial court order grant ing summ ary jud g ment doe s n ot s pecifythe g ro unds re li ed upon , a re v iew ing co urt mus t affirm the
sum ma ry judgme nt i f any of the groun ds urged in the mo tion have me rit. Our rev iew is de
novo co nst ru ing the re cord in a l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant a nd di sreg ardin g all contrar

y ev ide nce and i nferenc es. W ester n Inv s., Inc

. v. Ur

ena, 162 S. W .3d 5 47, 5 50 (Tex . 200 5) ; Ki

ng R anch, Inc . v

. Chapm an , 118 S.W .3d 7 42, 7 51 ( Tex . 200 3) ; Mer ri ll D ow Ph a rms ., Inc

. v . Hav

ner , 953 S.W .2d 706 , 711 (Tex. 1997 ). As w e noted abov e, appell ant pled caus es of acti on for neg li g ence, nui sanc e, an d trespas s. To prev a il o n a n eg li g ence caus e of act ion , t he pl ain ti ff mustprov e: 1) the
ex is tenc e of

a duty , 2) a breach of

that duty , and 3) damages prox imat ely caused by

the breach. W

este rn Invs., In c. v. Ur

ena, 162 S.W .3d a t 550

. A “nui sanc e” i s a co ndi ti on th at7

subst ant ially

interferes w ith the use an d en joyme n t of land by causing unrea sona ble dis comfortor

annoy ance to a person of ordin ar y sens ibi li ti es attempt ing to use and enj oy it

. Holubec v. Br

andenber

ger , 111 S.W .3d 3 2, 37 ( Tex . 200 3)

. Beca use appel lan t al leg es her i nju ry w as caus ed by

the Ci ty ’s neg li g ence, our disc uss ion is focus ed on that all eg ati on as a ba sis fo r he r p ri va t e n uisan ce claim. A plaintif f seeking to recover dam ages for a trespas s t o real proper ty mustprov e tha t: 1 ) th e plai nti ff ow ns or has a l awful r ig ht t o poss ess re a l proper

ty , 2) the defendant ent ered th e pl ain ti ff ’s l and and the entr y w as phy si cal , i ntent ion al, and v olu ntar y , and 3) the defendant’ s t re spas s c aused i nju ry to the pla int iff. W

ilen v . F alk enstein , 191 S.W .3 d 7 9 1 , 7 98 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 06, p et. deni ed)

. W hen a subj ecti s o f such scie nti fic o r tec hni cal natu re thati t ex ceeds the
e xp e ri ence and knowl edge of the jury or court, on ly

the te stimo ny of

an expert skilled in that subj e ct c a rri es probati v e v alu e. Cox son v. Atl

anta Lif e Ins . C o. , 142 Tex . 544 , 179 S.W .2d 9 43, 9 45 ( 1944)

. This i s o rd ina rily tr u e in prov ing the caus e, di ag nosi s, and treatment of a di seas e. Scott v . Li ber ty Mu t. Ins . C o., 204 S.W .2d 16, 18 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.– Aust in 194 7, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ). T hus, the q uest ion as to w hether appel lan t’ s e x posure to the
ra w se w ag e c oul d be a prox imat e c ause of contract ing the Hep ati tus C v ir us w as not o ne that coul d be re sol v ed by a l ay factf ind er

w it hout the assi sta nce of a q ual ified ex per t. That bei ng tr ue, a ppel lan t c oul d nothav e met her no ev ide nce summar y j udg ment burden on
caus ati on of contract ing the Hep ati tus C v ir us ev en had she proper ly present ed th e evidence sh e no w

say s she po ssesses. Th us, ap pellan t’s sole poin t mu st b e , a n d is hereby , ov er ru led

.8

W e ha v e no t ove rlooked the m otion the City f iled in this cou rt asserting certain document s a ttac hed t o appel lan t’ s b ri ef w ere out si de th e record and s h o uld not be consid ered bythis court. Suf f ice it to say tha t no do cum entoutsid e the a ppe llate record
w as cons ide re d bythis court , reg ardle ss of the proponent

. See Sabi ne Of fsh or e Ser vice, Inc . v . Cit y o f Po rt Ar thur , 595 S .W .2d 8 40, 8 41 ( Tex . 197 9) ; Bea sley v. Pete rs , 870 S.W .2d 191 , 194 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 1994 , no wr it). Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

J o h n T

. B o yd Seni or Ju sti ce