NO. 07-06 -046 4-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 C MA Y17, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ MA RY ELI ZAB ETH G RI GGS, Appel lan t
v. AM AR ILLO NU RS IN G C EN TER, IN C. , Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO. 54, 458 -A-B; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Mary Eliz abe th Grigg s app e a ls from a sum ma ry judgmen t den y ing her recov ery against Am arillo Nursing C e nte r, Inc. She had sued Ama rill o Nursing to recomp ense inj ur ies al leg edl y suffered w hen fall ing i n a g ra ss -c ov ered depress ion or hol e w hil e w alk ing
across the g ro unds of the home. As a v olu nteer , Gr ig g s w as on her w ay to preach to t he home’s resi dents as sh e had in the p ast

. Amar il lo Nu rs ing f il ed both a tradi ti onal and noe vide n ce m o ti o n fo r su m m a ry jud gm e n t, w h ich th e tri a l co u rtgra n te d

. B e fo re us , G riggs2

ass erts that the t ri al cour t er re d i n 1 ) f in d in g thatsh e w as a l ic ensee , as oppos ed to an invi tee , and 2 ) susta ining the he arsay objection of the nu rsing hom e to an af f idavit suppo sedl y

es tabl is hin g thatthe home w as aw are of t he premis es defect. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Inv itee/Licens ee St

atus The duty ow ed by

Amar il lo Nursi ng to Gr ig g s d e p e nds upon w hether sh e w as an inv it ee or l ic ensee . Mo tel

6 G .P., Inc . v

. Lop ez , 929 S.W .2d 1, 3 ( T ex. 1996 ). Inv itees a re owed the du ty of

reason able care; tha t is, the occup ier o f t he realty must use reason able care to p rotectinv itees a gainst dan gerous c ond itions of w hich th e occu pier reaso nab ly shoul d hav e k now n. CM H Hom es, Inc . v

. D aenen, 15 S. W .3d 9 7 , 1 0 1 ( T ex. 2000 ); Hou sto n v

. Nor thwest Vi ll age, Ltd., 113 S. W .3d 4 43, 4 46 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar ill o 2003, no pet.)

. W it h reg ard to a l ic ensee , how ev er , t he oc cupi er need onl y

w ar n aboutor

amel iorate dang ers o f w hic h he act ual ly kn ew . W

al- Ma rt Sto re s, Inc . v

. M il ler , 102 S. W .3d 7 06, 7 09 (Tex . 200 3)

. Thoug h a v o lu n te er , G ri g g s a ss erts that she ser v ed an econo mici nterestor confer re d an econo micbenefitupon the n ursi ng home an d tha t made her an i nv it ee. See Mc Clur e v . Rich, 95 S. W .3d 6 20, 6 25 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 200 2 , n o pet.) ( sta ti ng thatan invi tee is one w hose p resen ce serv es the p ossesso r’s eco nom ic int erest). T he e cono mic int erest or benefit menti oned by Gr ig g s cons is ted of he r prov idi ng a s er v ic e ( preachi ng ) to the hom e’s residen ts since the hom e w as obligated b y la w to generally provide “serv ices” to rem a in in bu sin e ss . A ss u m in g ar guendothatone nee d on ly confer som e eco nom ic3

benefit upon t he oc cupi er to become an i nv it ee, w e nonet hel ess find t hat G ri g g s fai led to
c r e a t e a n i s s u e o f fa c tre g a rd i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f McClure

. The law menti oned by Gr ig g s appeared at 40 T.A.C . §19 .702( a) , and st ated that the “facility mustprovi de for an on going program of a ctiv ities designed to me et, in acco rdan ce w it h the co mpreh ensi v e as ses sment, the int erestand phy si cal , ment al, and psy chos oci al
w ell -b ein g of each re si dent. ” 40 T EX . A D M IN . C OD E §19.02 (2 001) (So cia l Se rv ic es and Ass is tanc e)

. W hat w as meant by the te rm “ act iv it ies ” w ent u ndefined by both the regulation and Grig gs. Furthe rmore , wh ate v er the “activities” contem plate d w ere, th eir provisi on was subject to th e existence of a “comp rehe nsive assessme nt.” In oth er w ords, th e ac ti v i ti es mu s t ha v e ar i s en from o r s at i s fi ed nee ds unco v ered a s a res ul t of s om e “c ompre hensi v e as ses sment. ” W hether su ch an as ses sment e xi sts here al so w ent
unm ent ione d by Gr igg s. So too do w e no te th e un cont radicte d evidence of record il lus trati ng thatthe nursi ng home w oul d hav e c ompli ed w it h bot h s tate and federal
re q uirements i n the abs ence of Gri g g s’ v olu ntar y efforts. W it hout any

co nceptof w hat the re g ula tors int ended by the w ord “a cti v it ies ,” w it hout know ing w hether

there ex is ted a co mpreh ensive a ss ess ment c all ing for a cti v it ies that encompas ses reli g iou s i nst ru cti on or preac hin g , and g iv en th e ev ide nce that g ov er nmental requireme nts w ere m et irrespect iv e of Grig gs’ ef

forts, w e can notsa y

t hata fact issue arose regarding w het her she conferred som e type o f e c o n om ic bene f it upo n the hom e. T hus,
w e re ject her cont enti on that she met the spec ific tes t es pouse d i n McClure and created an i ss ue of fact.4

Evi denceof Knowle dge Ha vin g fa il e d t o sh o w th a tt h e t ri a l c o u rte rr e d in h o ld in g h e r a li c e n s e e , G ri ggs n e xt
arg ues that she present ed some ev ide nce show ing that the home w as act ual ly aw are of the prem ise s defect. T hatev iden ce cam e in the form o f an af f idavit ex ecut ed b y

Celia Thomas, a perso n w ho as si ste d w it h Sund ay w orshi p s er

v ic es. I n i t, Thomas rela ted t hat “a person on the staf

f of the nu rsing cent er said som eth ing to the ef f e c tt h a t the y

w ere afra i d s o me t h i n g l i k e t h i s w a s g o i n g t o h a p p e n . ” H o w e v e r , s h e d i d “ n o tr emember the
ex actw ords and coul d not sayw ho the staff perso n w as. ” Pu rp ortedl y thi s s tatementw as off ered to establ is h notic e of the defect on the par

t of the nursi ng home, not t o prov e the tr uth o f w hat w as ass erted. So too c oul d i t be cons ide re d an ex ci ted u tterance, sh e cont inu ed. The appl ic abl e s tandard of re v iew i s o ne of abus ed di sc re ti on. McKee v. McNeir, 151 S. W .3d 2 68, 2 69 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2004, no pet .)

. That i s, the a ppel lan t mus t s how that the d eci si on fail ed to co mportw it h appl ic abl e r ule s a nd g uid ing pr inc ipl es. Trevino v. Pem ber ton, 918 S. W .2d 1 02, 1 04 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1996, no w ri t) . Fu rther more, the pur por ted er ro r must be har mf ul before the deci si on can be re v ersed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4.1. As su m in g ar

guendot h a tt h e a f

f id a vita n d st a t e m e n tt h e re in we re n o t h e a rs a y, we non eth eless con clude thatits adm ission w ould not ha v e cha nged th e ou tcom e. T his is so becau se t o i mpute k now led g e to Amar il lo Nursi ng , t he person all eg edl y maki ng the comment had t o hav e been an empl oy ee of thatbus ine ss . S te n s r u d v . L e a d i ng Edg e Aviatio n Serv. of

Am arillo, Inc. 214 S.W .3d 98, 10 0 (Te x . App .–A ma rill o 20 06, n o pe t.). Othe r than sim ply conclu ding thatthe un known person w a s a mem ber of the ho me ’s5

“s taff ,” Gr ig g s prov ide d no other ev ide nce touc hin g upon the cr it er ia used to de te rmi ne employ ee s tatus

. See i d. (describing the relevant criteria). M oreo v er, a con c lu sory sta tement is i nsuffici ent t o rais e a fact is sue in a s ummary j udg ment proceed ing

. Ry lan d Gr oup v . Hood, 924 S. W .2d 1 20, 1 22 ( Tex . 199 6) . Therefore , Thomas’ a ff ida v itco ntai ned no admi ss ibl e ev ide nce suffici ent t o i mpute k now led g e of the all eg ed defectto the n ursi ng home. W e ov er ru le Gr ig g s’ i ss ues and affirm the s ummary j udg ment.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice