# 04

- 14

- 00899

- CV

In the 

# Fourth Court of Appeals

S ITTING AT 

### S AN 

### A NTONIO

LETICIA ZEPEDA VASQU EZ, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham Vasquez, Jr ., Appellant

,

v.

LEGEND NATURAL GAS III, LP ; LEGEND NATURAL GAS, LLC; LEWIS ENERGY GRO UP, L P; LEWIS PETRO PROPE RTIES, INC.;

ROSETTA RESOURCES OP ERATING, LP; VIRTEX HOLDINGS, LLP; VIRTEX OPERATIN G CO., INC.; ENTERPR ISE PRODUCTS HOLDINGS, LLC; ENTER PRISE PRODUCTS COMPA NY; and XTO ENERGY, INC., Appellees

Appealed From the 81 st District Cou rt La Salle County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- 07

- 0019

- CVL 

# AP PELLANT ’ S OPENING BRIEF

J EFFREY 

### L. D ORRELL

State Bar No. 00787386 jdorrell@hanszenlaporte.com

11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850 Houston, Texas 77079 Telephone: 713

- 522

- 9444 FAX: 713

- 524

- 2580 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT



### APPELLANT REQUEST S ORAL ARGUME NT

. ACCEPTED 04-14-00899-cv FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/31/2015 4:47:38 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKii 

### IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL

Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of the parties,

the attorneys, and any other person who has any interest in the outcome of

this ma tter:

PARTIES COUNSEL
Leticia Zepeda Vasquez, Jeffrey Lee Dorrell Appellant H. Mark B urck Daniel Dutko Hanszen Laporte, LLP 11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850 Houston, Texas 77079 Telephone: 713

- 522

- 9444 FAX: 713

- 524

- 2580 Attorney for Ap pellant

Legend Natural Gas III, LP, and Legend Natural Gas, LLC Isaac J. Huron Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc. Appellees McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 755 E. Mulberry Avenue San Antonio, Texas 7821 3 Telephone: 210

- 822

- 6666 FAX: 21 0

- 822

- 1151 Attor ney for Legend Natural Gas III , LP, and Legend Natural Gas, LLC

Lewis Energy Group, LP , and Lew is Petro Properties , Inc. David L. Ortega Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLLC Appellees 1001 Reunion Place, Suite 600 San An t o nio , Texas 7 8216 Telep hone: 210

- 731

- 6300 FAX: 210

- 785

- 2953 Attorney for Lewis Energy Group, LP , and Lewis Petro Properties, Inc.iii XTO Energy, Inc. Appellee Jose E. Garcia Garcia & Villareal 4311 N. McColl Road McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone: 956

- 630

- 0081 FAX: 956

- 630

- 3631 Attorney for XTO Energy, Inc.

Rosetta Resources Oper., LP Appellee William A. Abernethy Donnell, Abernethy & Kieschnick, P.C. 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 1770 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: 361

- 888

- 5 551 FAX: 361

- 880

- 5618 Attorney for Rosetta Resources Oper., LP

Virtex Operating Co., Inc

. , and Virtex Holdings, LLP Christopher Lowrance Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LL P Appellees 802 Carancahua, Suite 1300 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: 361

- 884

- 8808 FAX: 361

- 884

- 7261 Attorney for Virtex Operating Co., Inc. , and Virtex Holdings
, LLP

Enterprise Prod ucts Holdings , LLC, and Enterprise Products Co. E. Michael Rodriguez Atlas, Hall & Rodriguez, LLP P.O. Box 6369 (78523

- 6369) Appellees 50 W. Morrison Road, Suite A Brownsville , Texas 7 8520 Telephone: 956

- 574

- 9333 FAX: 956

- 574

- 9337 Attorney for Enterprise Products Holdings, LLC, and Enterprise Products Co.iv 

### T ABLE OF 

### C ONTENTS Page

IDENTITY OF P ARTIES AND COUNSEL

.. . .......... ...................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

......... ................................................. i v

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

...... ................................. ............... v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

... .......................................... ...... 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

......... ...... .......................................... 3

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

... ... ...... ............ .................. 4

STATE MENT OF FACTS

. ........................... ........ ...................... 5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

... .................................... ............. 6

ARGUMENT

.. ... ..................... . ....................................... ...... ... 7

Issue 1. Did defendants have a legal duty to act to prevent Vasquez’s death from the dangerous situation on Krueger Road that defendants themselves negligently created ?

..................................................... 7

CONCLUSION

... ... ............................................................ 10

PRAYER

... . ....................................... ........................ ...... 1 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.................................... ......... 12

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE

............. ... 14

APPENDIX

...... ... ... ...................................................... ... 1 5v 

### INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page Abalos v. Oil Development Co. of Texas
, 544 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1976)

................................................ 9

Buchanan v. Rose
, 159 S.W.2d 109 ( Tex. 1 942)

................................................ 9
Cactus Drilling Co. v. Williams
, 525 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Civ. Ap p.

— Am arillo 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.)

... 9
Chrysler Corp. v. Dallas Power & Light Co
., 522 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Eastland 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.)

.... 9
City of Austin v. Liberty Mut. Ins
., 431 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2014, no pet.)

..................... 3
Courville v. Home Transportation Co

. , 497 S.W.2d 788 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Be aumont 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.)

.. 9
Dailey v. Thorpe
, 445 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.)

. ...... 3
Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Archer
, 167 S.W.2d 290 (T ex. Civ. App.

— Dallas 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.)

.... 9

Devoll v. Demonbreun
, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13865 at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Ant onio December 31, 2014, n.p.h.)

.................. 3
GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups
, 429 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2014, pet. denied )

...... ...... 3

San Benito Bank & Trust Co. v. Travels
, 31 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2000)

....................... 9
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe
, 903 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1995)

............................................. 8

- 9
Wooley v. Schaffer
, 447 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. filed )

............................................................. 3 , 7vi RULES

T EX

. R. C IV . P. 91 a

........................................ ...... ......... Passim1 

# 04

- 14

- 00899

- CV

LETICIA ZEPEDA VASQU EZ, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham Vasquez, Jr ., Appellant

v.

LEGEND NATURAL GAS III , LP ; LEGEND NATURAL GAS, LLC; LEWIS ENERGY GROUP, L P; LEWIS PETRO PROPE RTIES, INC.;

ROSETTA RESOURCES OP ERATING, LP; VIRTEX HOLDINGS, LLP; VIRTEX OPERATIN G CO., INC.; EN TERPRISE PRODUCTS HOLDINGS, LLC; ENTERPRISE PRO DUCTS COMPANY; and XTO ENERGY, INC., Appellees



# APPELLANT ’ S OPENING BRIEF

Appellant Leticia Zepeda Vasquez file s her opening brief. Appellant

will be referred to individually by name , or as “plaintiff ,” as she was
designated below

. Appellee s Legend Natural Gas III, LP; Legend

Natura l Gas , LLC; Lewis Energy Group, LP; Lewis Petro Properties ,
Inc.; Rosetta Resources Operating, LP; Virtex Holdings, LLP; Virtex

Operating Company, Inc.; En terprise Products Holdings, LLC;

Enterprise Products Company; and XTO Energy, Inc. , will be referred to

individually by name, or collectively as “ defendants
, ” as they were

designated below.2 

### S TATEMENT OF THE 

### C ASE

Nature of the case . On July 21 , 2014, plaintiff sued the ten defendants

for negligence and gross negligence

. (CR 5

- 6 .) On October 2, 2014,

plaintiff filed her first amended original petition asserting the same claims

. ( Tab C
, CR 84

- 86 .) The various d efendants generally denied , raised

affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed . ( CR 8

- 56.) The defendants’

affirmative defenses and counterclaim s are not at issue in this appeal.

Course of proceedings . No trial was held. D efendants Legend

Natural Gas III , LP, and Legend Natural Gas, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s claims Under T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 91a. (CR 62 .) A similar motion

was inclu ded in the body of the answer filed by defendants Lewis Energy

Group, LP, and Lew is Petro Properties. (CR 52

- 53.) On October 16 , 2014,

the trial court held an oral hearing on defendants’ motion s to dismiss

. Trial court disposition

. T he trial court gran ted defendants’ motion s to

dismiss on November 20, 2014 , but failed to dispose of certain other claims

. (CR 147

- 48.) Plaintiff filed a premature notice of appeal. (CR 159.) On

January 5, 2015, the trial court entered a final order granting all defendan ts’

motions to dismiss and severing the undisposed claims . (2d SCR 7

- 8.) ( Tab

A

. ) On January 29, 2015
, plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal of the

new order

. ( 2d SCR 1 .)3 

### S TANDARD OF 

### R EVIEW

This Court reviews the trial court’s dismissal of Vasquez’s claims

pursuant to T EX

. R. C IV . P. 91a de novo

. Devoll v. Demonbreun , 2014 Tex.

App . LEXIS 13865 at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio December 31, 2014,

n.p.h.); Wooley v. Schaffer
, 447 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th

Dist.] 2014, pet. filed ) ; D ailey v. Thorpe , 445 S.W.3d 785 , 787 (Tex.

App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) ; City of Austin v. Liberty Mut.

Ins ., 431 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2014, no pet.) ;

GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups , 429 S.W.3d 752, 754 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont

2014, pet. den ied )

.4 

### I SSUE 

### P RESENTED FOR 

### R EVIEW

Issue 1: Did defendants have a legal duty to act to prevent Vasquez’s death from the dangerous situation on Krueger Road that defendants themselves negligently created ?5 

### S TATEMENT OF 

### F ACTS

On August 4, 2012, Jose Vasquez was tragically killed when his

vehicle flipped over in an accident that could have been avoided if not for

the negligence of defendants. (CR 82.) Vasquez was operating his vehicle

on Krueger Road in La Salle County, Texas , when he was blinded by a dust

cloud and drove into a ditch. ( Id .) Once a safe, paved road for the public

(CR 83), Kruger Road has now become dangerously dilapidated as a result

of defendants’ negligent use of the road to operate their oil and gas wells in

the area. (CR 81

- 82. ) T he road now has potholes, crevices, bumps, and the

road has no markings to determine the proper lanes of travel . (CR 83 , 85 .)

D efendants’ negligent operation of their trucks and businesses

include s sending hundreds or thousands of trucks every year

— some over
legal weight limits

— driving “recklessly” or at to o high a rate of speed down

Krueger Road

. (CR 83.) Defendants knew that their operations had created

the dangerous conditions on Krueger Road that eventually killed Jose

Vasquez. (CR 83

- 85.) D efendants did nothing either to repair Krueger

R oad or warn others of the dangerous conditions they have negligently

created

. (CR 83

- 85.)6 

### S UMMARY OF THE 

### A RGUMENT

The trial court was bound to take plaintiff’s factual allegations pled as

true and libe rally construe them in her favor. The trial court implicitly found

that defendants owed no legal duty to Jose Vasquez when it dismissed his

widow’s claims under T EX

. R. C IV . P. 91a because her claims allegedly had

“no basis in law.” However, Texas courts have long recognized at least two

species of duty when a defendant creates a dangerous condition. If the

defendant created the dangerous condition negligently , he has a duty to

repair it. If the defendant created the dangerous condition without being

ne gligent , he nevertheless still has a duty to warn those who may be injured

as a result. The trial court erred when it failed to recognize defendants’ duty

to repair or to warn Jose Vasquez of the unreasonably danger ous condition

their trucks had negligent ly created.7 

### A RGUMENT

Argument and Authorities

— Issue 1

Issue 1: Did defendants have a legal duty to act to prevent Vasquez’s death from the dangerous situation on Krueger Road that defendants themselves negligently created ?

Yes. However
, the trial c ourt implicitly found that there could be no
such duty when it dismissed plaintiff ’s claims pursuant to Rule 91a as
having “no basis in law.”

Rule 91a allows a party to move to dismiss a bas e less cause of action

on the grounds that it has no basis in law or fact. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 91a.1

. In

the case at bar, fact issues are not in dispute

— the trial court ’s order is

expressly limited to dismissal because the claims allegedly had “no basis in

law.” ( Tab A

. )

A cause of action has no basis in law if the alle gations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought.

T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 91a.1

. The trial court must decide a Rule 91a motion to

dismiss based solely on the plea d ing of the cause of a ction, together with

any exhibits permitted by Rule 59

. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 91a.6

.
In conducting our [Rule 91a] review, ... we must construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, look to the pleader’s intent, and accept as true the factual allega tions in the pleadings

.... Wooley v. Schaffer , 447 S.W.3d 71, 7 6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.]

2014, pet. filed ) [emphasis added]

.8 Thus, factual allegations the trial court was obliged to “ take as true ”

and liberally construe in favor of plaintiff inclu ded:

(i) I t takes 1200 trucks to bring one oil or gas well into production; ( Tab C
, CR 81)

(ii) I t takes 350 trucks a year to maintain one oil or gas well; ( Tab C
, CR 81)

(iii) T he service life of roads in areas around oil or gas wells is reduced more than 30% per ye ar due to well operations; ( Tab C
, CR 81

- 82)

(iv) D efendants knew that La Salle County could not repair Krueger Road as fast as defendants destroyed it; ( Tab C
, CR 82)

(v) S ome of defendants’ trucks travelled at an unsafe speed; ( Tab C
, CR 83)

(vi) S ome of defendan ts’ trucks travelled “recklessly;” ( Tab C
, CR 84)

(vii) S ome of defendants’ trucks were overweight; ( Tab C
, CR 83
, 85 )

(viii) Krueger Road was o nce a safe, paved road for the public ; ( Tab C
, CR 83)

(ix) Krueger Road i s now in a dangerously dilapidated condition, with p otholes, crevices, and bumps; ( Tab C
, CR 83 , 85 )

(x) Defendants knew they had created Krueger Road’s dangerously dilapidated condition ; ( Tab C
, CR 83 , 85 )

(xi) It was foreseeable that Vasquez (or others) could be injured while in the lawful exercise of his rig ht to drive on Krueger Road; ( Tab C
, CR 83) and

(xii) Defendants did nothing either to repair Krueger Road or warn others of the dangerous conditions defendants had created there. ( Tab C
, CR 83)9 Texas courts have long held that i f a party creates a dangerous

condition, he has a duty to prevent injury to others if it is reasonably

foreseeable that others in the exercise of their lawful rights may be injured

by the dangerous condition he created. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe
, 903 S.W.2d 347, 353 (Tex. 1995) ; Buchanan v. Rose , 159 S.W.2d 109, 110

(1942); San Benito Bank & Trust Co. v. Travels , 31 S.W.3d 312 , 319 (Tex.

App.

— Corpus Christi 2000).

[I]t may be said generally, on the one hand, that if a party negligently creates a dangerous situation it then becom es his duty to do something about it to prevent injury to others if it reasonably appears or should appear to him that others in the exercise of their lawful rights may be injured thereby.

Buchanan , 159 S.W.2d at 110; see also Abalos v. Oil Development Co . of

Texas , 544 S.W.2d 627, 632

- 33 (Tex. 1976) ; Cactus Drilling Co. v.

Williams , 525 S.W.2d 902, 911 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Amarillo 1975, writ ref’d

n.r.e.); Chrysler Corp. v. Dallas Power & Light Co ., 522 S.W.2d 742, 744

(Tex. Civ. App.

— Eastland 1975, writ ref’ d n.r.e.); Courville v. Home

Transportation Co

. , 497 S.W.2d 788, 790

- 91 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Beaumont

1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Archer , 167 S.W.2d

290, 293 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Dallas 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.).

Nor does it absolve a d efendant of all duty if he creates the dangerous

condition on a “ public way”

— even if he does so without being negligent :10 We think it may also be said that if one by his own acts, although without negligence on his part, creates a dangerous situation in

or along a public way and it reasonably appears that another in the lawful use of such way in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety may be injured by the dangerous situation so created, the one creating the same must give warning of the danger or be responsible for the consequences. To illustrate: One who in the exercise of a lawful right, and without negligence on his part, makes an excavation across a street or sidewalk or on his premises in close proximity to a public way, or parks a vehicle in a road, or otherwise obstructs the road with a foreign substance, is bound to give warning of the danger created thereby.

Buchanan , 159 S.W.2d at 110 [citations omitted]. Although the duty may

be different

— to warn other s of the dangerous condition as opp osed to a duty

to repair the condition

— there is nevertheless still a duty.

Defendants owed the Buchanan duties to Jose Vasquez. When they

breached their duties , defendants cause d Jose Vasquez’s death

.


### C ONCLUSION

The trial court was bound to take plai ntiff’s factual allegations pled as

true and liberally construe them in her favor. The trial court implicitly found

that defendants owed no legal duty to Jose Vasquez when it dismissed his

widow’s claims under T EX

. R. C IV . P. 91a as having “no basis in la w.”

Because Texas courts have long recognized a duty when a defendant creates

a dangerous condition, t he trial court erred when it failed to recognize

defendants’ duty to repair or to warn Jose Vasquez of the unreasonably

dangerous condition defendants’ t rucks had created

.11 

### P RAYER

For these reasons, appellant Leticia Zepeda Vasquez prays t hat the

Court reverse the trial court’s dismissal of her claims and causes of action

against defendants as having “no basis in law,” and remand to the trial court

for a trial

.
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Dorrell

. Jeffrey L. Dorrell State Bar No. 00787386 jdorrell@hanszenlaporte.com 11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850 Houston, Texas 77079 Telephone: 713

- 522

- 9444 FAX: 713

- 524

- 2580 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELL ANT LETICIA ZEPEDA VASQUEZ12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE

I hereby certify that on 3

- 3 1 , 2015 , a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by:

Hand delivery Certified mail Tele phonic document transfer X E

- service in accordance with T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9.5(b)

in accordance with T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9.5(c) to the following counsel of record:

Mr. William A. Abernethy Donnell, Abernethy & Kieschnick, P.C. 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 1770 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: 361

- 888

- 5551 FAX: 361

- 880

- 5618 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDAN T ROSETTA RESOURCES OPERATING, LP.
Mr. David L. Ortega Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLLC 1001 Reunion Place, Suite 600 San Antonio, Texas 78216 Telephone: 210

- 731

- 6300 FAX: 210

- 785

- 2953 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDAN TS LEWIS ENERGY GROU P, LP, and LEWIS PETRO PROPERTI ES, INC.
Mr. Christopher Lowrance Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P. 802 Carancahua, Suite 1300 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: 361

- 884

- 8808 FA X: 361

- 884

- 7261 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDAN TS VIRTEX OPERATING CO., INC., and VIRTEX HOLDINGS, LLP13 Mr. Isaac J. Huron Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc. McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 755 E. Mulberry Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78213 Telephone: 210

- 822

- 6666 FAX: 210

- 822

- 1 151 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDAN TS LEGEND NATURAL GA S III, LP, and LEGEND NATURAL GAS, LLC

Mr. E. Michael Rodriguez Atlas, Hall & Rodriguez, L.L.P. P.O. Box 6369 (78523

- 6369) 50 W. Morrison Road, Suite A Brownsville, Texas 78520 Telephone: 956

- 574

- 9333 FAX: 956

- 574

- 9337 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDAN TS ENTERPRISE PRODUC TS HOLDINGS, LLC, and ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS CO.

Mr. Jose E. Garcia Garcia & Villareal 4311 N. McColl Road McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone: 956

- 630

- 0081 FAX: 956

- 630

- 3631 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDAN T XTO ENERGY, INC.

/s/ Jeffrey L. Dorrell

JEFFREY L. DORRELL14 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANC E
In compliance with T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9.4, relying on the word count function in the word processing software used to produce this document, I certif y that the number of words in this document including footnotes (excluding captions, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statemen t of jurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of

c ompliance, and appendix) is 1,343

.

/s/ Jeffrey L. Dorrell

JEFFREY L. DORRELL15 

# 04

- 14

- 00899

- CV

LETICIA ZEPEDA VASQU EZ, Indivi dually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham Vasquez, Jr ., Appellant

v.

LEGEND NATURAL GAS I II, LP; LEGEND NATUR AL GAS, LLC; LEWIS ENERGY GROUP, LP; LE WIS PETRO PROPERTIES , INC.; ROSETTA

RESOURCES OPERATING, LP; VIRTEX HOLDINGS, LLP; VIRTEX OPERAT ING CO., INC.; ENTER PRISE PRODUCTS HOLDI NGS, LLC; ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS COMPANY; and XTO ENERGY, INC.,

Appellees



### APPELLANT ’S APPENDIX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. January 5, 2015, Order Appealed From

........................... ... ... Tab A

2. T EX

. R. C IV . P. 91a.

......................................... ......... ... ... Tab B

3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition

.. ..................... ... ... Tab C