Court Opinion

ID: 9881821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 07:46:56.28509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:12.431774
License: Public Domain

In the
                        Court of Appeals
          Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                             No. 06-23-00052-CV

              UNIQUE INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE
                  OF CODRU BROTHERS INC., Appellant

                                       V.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND TEXAS IRON & STEEL, LLC, Appellees

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                            Gregg County, Texas
                      Trial Court No. 2022-495-CCL2

                 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Unique Insurance Company, as subrogee of Codru Brothers Inc., sued Union Pacific

Railroad Company and Texas Iron & Steel, LLC, for damages to Codru Brothers’ trailer after it

was struck by a train at a private railroad crossing. Union Pacific and Texas Iron filed no-

evidence motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court granted both motions.

Unique appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgments because it

provided some evidence that Union Pacific and Texas Iron were negligent in causing the

crossing accident. Because we conclude that Unique provided no summary judgment evidence,

we affirm the trial court’s order.1

I.          Background

            Unique’s live petition2 at the time of the summary judgment hearing alleged that a Codru

Brothers’ delivery driver drove a tractor-trailer owned by Codru Brothers to pick up a load of

steel from Texas Iron. Before the driver left with his load, a Texas Iron employee told the driver

to try and cross the tracks but that, if he was unable to cross, someone would come with a forklift

to assist him. When the driver attempted to cross, the trailer got stuck on the tracks. The driver

initially alerted Texas Iron of this development and then alerted Union Pacific. Union Pacific

1
 The trial court entered two separate summary judgment orders. The order granting Texas Iron’s motion dismissed
all of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The order granting Union Pacific’s motion did not contain that language. On
March 1, 2023, the trial court entered its order of dismissal with prejudice as to all of plaintiff’s claims against
Union Pacific. Unique appeals that final order.
2
    Unique’s original petition was filed on April 4, 2022. Its amended petition was filed on April 27, 2022.
                                                             2
was unable to contact the engineer of an approaching train, which collided with the trailer,

totaling it.3

            As a result of those events, Unique leveled claims of negligence against Union Pacific,

claiming that its engineer (1) failed to maintain a proper lookout, (2) failed to take proper evasive

action to avoid colliding into the vehicle, and (3) failed to exercise ordinary care as a reasonably

prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. As for Texas Iron,

Unique claimed that its employee failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted

under the same or similar circumstances when he advised the truck driver to try and cross the

tracks.

            In January 2023, Union Pacific and Texas Iron both filed no-evidence motions for

summary judgment requesting the trial court to enter judgments concluding that Unique had no

evidence to establish its negligence claims against them. More specifically, both Union Pacific

and Texas Iron claimed that Unique provided no evidence (1) that Union Pacific or Texas Iron

breached their duties to appellant, (2) that the alleged breach proximately caused appellant’s

damages, and (3) that appellant was damaged as a result of the alleged breach. Union Pacific

and Texas Iron also claimed that, since the inception of the lawsuit nine months hence, Unique

had neither served written discovery nor requested depositions.4

            In its joint response to the summary judgment motions, Unique argued that Texas Iron

and Union Pacific had a duty to keep the private railroad crossing in a safe condition and that

3
    The driver got out of his truck before the collision and was uninjured.
4
 In its motion, Union Pacific pointed out that the trial court’s scheduling order set a January 12, 2023, deadline for
filing dispositive motions.
                                                              3
they failed to maintain that duty, stating that each were negligent for a premises defect and for

“an activity or instrumentality.” Unique claimed that the issue of whether the railroad crossing

was unsafe due to its grade was a jury question. Unique also argued that Union Pacific had a

duty to provide a reasonable and timely warning of an approaching train. Unique claimed that

this issue presented a fact question for the jury. In support of those allegations, Unique attached

three unsworn exhibits.

       Texas Iron filed objections to the joint response, asking the trial court to strike the

unsworn exhibits as improper, inadmissible summary judgment evidence. Exhibit A to Unique’s

response was a three-page, unsigned “Accident Report Form” apparently made in connection

with an insurance claim. Texas Iron pointed out that Exhibit A was “a copy of a document that

[was] unsupported by an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts attesting that it [was]

a true and correct copy.” Texas Iron also complained that the “sworn statement” on page three

of Exhibit A was not sworn and failed to comport with the requirements of Rule 166a of the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

       Texas Iron also pointed out that Exhibits B and C, respectively consisting of

(1) photographs Unique relied on to “support its factual contention that the railroad crossing was

not flat” and (2) a Google map purporting to support Unique’s contentions “regarding the

distance between the railroad crossing and a Marmon Railroad Services-Longview Shop,” were

both attached to the joint response with no supporting affidavits attesting to their authenticity.

The trial court sustained Texas Iron’s objections to Exhibits A, B, and C attached to Unique’s

joint response and granted the motions for summary judgment.

                                                4
II.    Standard of Review

       “We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, taking as true all evidence

favorable to the nonmovant and indulging every reasonable inference in the nonmovant’s favor.”

JLB Builders, L.L.C. v. Hernandez, 622 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Tex. 2021) (citing Valence Operating

Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005)). “[A] party may obtain a no-evidence

summary judgment when ‘there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or

defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.’” Id. (quoting TEX.

R. CIV. P. 166a(i)). “A properly filed no-evidence motion shifts the burden to the nonmovant to

present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact supporting each element contested in the

motion.” Id. (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582

(Tex. 2006)). “[A] no-evidence summary judgment is improperly granted if the respondent

brings forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact.”

King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i);

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002)).

III.   The Trial Court Did Not Err in Granting the No-Evidence Motions for Summary
       Judgment

       On appeal, Unique claims that it provided some evidence that Texas Iron and Union

Pacific were negligent in causing the accident in question. We disagree.

       “The same evidentiary standards that apply in trials also control the admissibility of

evidence in summary judgment proceedings.” Young Fam. Revocable Tr. v. Young, No. 06-22-

00054-CV, 2023 WL 3139001, at *6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 28, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(citing United Blood Servs. v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam)). As was
                                                 5
the case here, “[m]erely attaching unauthenticated documents and photographs to a response

does not make the attachments competent summary judgment evidence.” Paselk v. Rabun, 293

S.W.3d 600, 611 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied).               “Documents submitted as

summary judgment proof must be sworn to or certified,” Mackey v. Great Lakes Inv., Inc., 255

S.W.3d 243, 252 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(f)),

and “[u]nauthenticated or unsworn documents . . . are not entitled to consideration as summary

judgment evidence,” Young, 2023 WL 3139001, at *6 (citing Consol. Healthcare Servs. v.

Mainland Shopping Ctr., 589 S.W.3d 915, 923–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no

pet.); Llopa, Inc. v. Nagal, 956 S.W.2d 82, 87 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied)).

       Even though none of the three exhibits attached to Unique’s joint response were sworn or

certified, Unique argues that they are nevertheless competent summary judgment evidence. In

support of this argument, Unique contends that, because the documents attached to its summary

judgment response were provided as part of its initial disclosures, those documents were proper

summary judgment evidence. Unique cites no authority in support of this proposition, and we

are aware of none.

       Because Unique failed to meet its burden to present evidence raising a genuine issue of

material fact supporting each element contested in the motion, the trial court properly granted the

no-evidence motions for summary judgment.

                                                6
IV.   Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s order.

                                           Charles van Cleef
                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      September 27, 2023
Date Decided:        September 28, 2023

                                             7