Court Opinion

ID: 9763964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:05:07.626417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:50.372369
License: Public Domain

OPINION
BURGESS, Justice.
Imogene and Carroll Warner sued Orange County, Texas, alleging negligence and gross negligence. Orange County moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion without articulating on what grounds or the court’s reasoning. Therefore, the Warners must show that each of the independent arguments alleged in the motion for summary judgment is insufficient to support the granting of the motion. Reese v. Beaumont Bank, N.A., 790 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1990, no writ). Since the Warners challenged the summary judgment by specific points, rather than assigning a general “Malooly” point of error, Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.1970), the summary judgment must be affirmed if there is another possible ground on which the trial court could have based the summary judgment. Reese, 790 S.W.2d at 804.
The Warners bring two points of error:

POINT OF ERROR ONE RESTATED

The trial court erred in finding that the incident did not arise out of the use and operation of a motor driven vehicle, and was therefore barred by sovereign immunity.

POINT OF ERROR TWO RESTATED

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in that there remains a fact question as to whether the county’s negligence was a proximate cause of the event.
Their brief makes no arguments other than those related to the two points recited above. *358These points do not address all of the grounds upon which summary judgment could have been granted. Orange County moved for summary judgment on the additional grounds that under either section 101.055(3) or 101.057(2) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the Texas Tort Claims Act does not apply to the War-ners’ claim. Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 101.055(3), 101.057(2) (Vernon 1997). Thus, they argue, the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for this action.
“[I]n the absence of a general point of error complaining of summary judgment, there must be a specific point on each possible basis for summary judgment to avoid a waiver of those grounds.” Parrish v. Brooks, 856 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1993, writ denied). Orange County’s contention that the Texas Tort Claims Act is inapplicable to the case at. bar is not argued or even mentioned in the Warners’ brief. “[Appellant’s] failure to address each theory that might support the trial court’s entry of summary judgment requires an affirmance.” Tindle v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 837 S.W.2d 795, 801 (TexApp. — Dallas 1992, no writ). If summary judgment may have been granted, properly or improperly, on a ground not challenged, the summary judgment must be affirmed. Holloway v. Starnes, 840 S.W.2d 14, 23 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, writ denied); King v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 716 S.W.2d 181, 182 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1986, no writ). The Warners failed to challenge two grounds upon which summary judgment may have been granted and thereby waived any error.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.