Court Opinion

ID: 9638490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:44:52.016744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:06.843725
License: Public Domain

FULLER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Mr. Herrera was designated by the doctors to be placed in Wing II which was for the crisis oriented— acute cases. Evidence in the record from the psychiatric nurse was that anyone in Wing II needed to be watched more closely and Mr. Herrera was in Wing II, a secured area, so he could be watched more closely. While the doctors who gave affidavits for the motion for summary judgment are not parties to this suit, they did state in their affidavits that Mr. Herrera’s history was not that of aggressive behavior, but they did admit him to Wing II of the hospital where the typical patients would be those posing a danger to themselves or others. Hospital records indicated that Mr. Herrera had assaulted a staff member. The fact that Mr. Herrera was a voluntary admission to the hospital did not lessen Appel-lee’s duty of care. There is also evidence in the record that there had been discussions at the hospital that the height of the confinement wall was inadequate. Movant had the burden to show no genuine issue of *788fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and it must conclusively prove all essential elements of its claim. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979); Rule 166-A, Tex.R.Civ.P. Evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true and every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant, and doubts resolved in their favor. Wilcox v. St. Mary’s University of San Antonio, 531 S.W.2d 589 (Tex.1975).
I would reverse the summary judgment granted by the trial court and remand the case for trial.