Court Opinion

ID: 9618046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:05:42.710162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:23.266777
License: Public Domain

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING

Remaining convinced that our original disposition was correct, Alash-mawi’s motion for rehearing en banc and IBP’s motion for rehearing are both overruled with the following comments.
By his motion for rehearing, Alashmawi urges that his pleadings raised violation of IBP’s duty to provide a safe workplace according to section 411.103 of the Texas Labor Code, and that he presented some evidence creating a genuine fact issue on the causation element of his non-statutory claim for negligence.
By paragraph seven of his third amended petition, without referencing section 411.103, Alashmawi generally alleged that IBP failed to provide him with a safe workplace followed by ten separate claims of negligence. Then, by paragraph eight entitled “Negligence Per Se,” he alleged IBP’s duty to provide a safe workplace followed by citations and reference to multiple OSHA rules and regulations, and then finally section 411.103 is referenced. However, that reference is global and does not indicate which of the duties per the three subsections of section 411.103 are implicated. Further, the pleadings do not allege facts which Alashmawi claims support any of the duties arising under section 411.103. Moreover, even if the statutory claims were asserted as required by Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex.1989), a question we do hot decide, nevertheless the statutory claims were not expressly presented to the trial court by written answer or other written response to IBP’s motion for summary judgment as required by McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.1993). In McConnell, the Court said:
Likewise, issues a non-movant contends avoid the movant’s entitlement to summary judgment must be expressly presented by written answer to the motion or by other written response to the motion and are not expressly presented by mere reference to summary judgment evidence.
Emphasis added. Because the issue of a safe workplace per the statute was not expressly presented to the trial court and cannot be expressly presented by mere reference to summary judgment evidence, they cannot be considered on appeal as *175grounds for reversal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(a) and (c).
Accordingly, the motions for rehearing are overruled.