Summary
acknowledging that parking or driving on pier was recreational
Summary of this case from Sam Houston State v. AndersonOpinion
No. 10-01-031-CV.
Opinion delivered and filed August 20, 2003.
Appeal from the 122nd District Court, Galveston County, Texas, Trial Court #97CV0457.
Reversed and rendered.
Barry Abrams and Ramon G. Viada, III Abrams, Scott Beckley, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Thomas C. Wright Campbell, Harrison Wright, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Roy L. Barrett, Naman, Howell, Smith Lee, P.C., Waco, Tx, for appellant/relator.
Otto D. Hewit, III, Hewitt Law Firm Alvin, TX, Alton C. Todd, Law Office of Alton C. Todd, Friendswood, TX, Warren W. Harris, B. Thomas Cook, Tracy C. Temple and Karen A. Lister Bracewell Patterson Houston, TX, Dale Williams Squires, Wlliams Wren, L.L.P., for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice DAVIS (not participating), Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenny Garza and Dorey Fabain went out in Galveston, Texas, to celebrate Kenny's birthday. Kenny bought alcoholic beverages, and the two drove to the pier at the Flagship Hotel. As some point in time, the car they were in backed off a notch in the pier and into the Gulf of Mexico. Two weeks later, Kenny's body washed ashore. Police located the car in the Gulf near the notch in the pier. Dorey's body was still inside. The parents and estates of Kenny and Dorey sued the City of Galveston, who owned the pier, and the Flagship Hotel, who operated the pier under a lease from the City. The jury awarded 2.75 million dollars for Kenny's survival damages, 3.75 million dollars for Dorey's survival damages, and 1 million dollars each to the four parents. We reverse and render a take nothing judgment.
The City and Flagship contend there is no evidence to support the jury's finding of gross negligence. In reviewing legal insufficiency issues, we consider only the evidence and inferences that, when viewed in the most favorable light, tend to support the finding, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Davis v. City of San Antonio, 752 S.W.2d 518, 522 (Tex. 1988). If there is any evidence of probative force to support the finding, the issue must be overruled and the finding upheld. Juliett Fowler Homes, Inc. v. Welch Assoc., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 660, 666 (Tex. 1990). We are required to review the sufficiency of the evidence based upon the charge submitted, even if erroneous. Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31, 55 (Tex. 2000); see also Wal-Mart v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711, 730 (Tex. 2001) (O'Neil, J., concurring).
The City and Flagship asserted the Recreational Use Statute as a limitation on the duty owed to Kenny and Dorey, more specifically, as the standard by which "gross negligence" must be determined and reviewed. The jury found that Kenny and Dorey were permitted to use the pier for "recreation" at the time of the events in question. No one contests this finding on appeal. We have previously addressed the issue of the duty owed by an owner or occupier of premises under the Recreational Use Statute. Flye v. City of Waco, 50 S.W.3d 645 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). As recreational users of the premises at the time of the occurrence in question, Kenny and Dorey were owed only the duty which is owed to a trespasser. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 75.002 (Vernon Supp. 2003).
Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 75.001, et. seq. (Vernon Supp. 2003).
It is not disputed that this issue was a submission necessary to determine whether the Recreational Use Statute was applicable to the facts of the case. The plaintiffs do, however, contend the court's judgment constitutes a deemed finding against the City and Flagship as to Kenny and Dorey's status as determined upon their entry to the pier in reliance on our opinion in Torres v. City of Bellmead, 40 S.W.3d 662 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001). After briefing and the submission of this case, the Texas Supreme Court reversed our opinion, holding that the intent of the injured party on entering the premises is not controlling. City of Bellmead v. Torres, 89 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. 2002). What controls is what the injured party was doing when he was injured. Id. Because the questions to the jury referenced the events in question, which was the car backing off the pier into the Gulf of Mexico resulting in Kenny's and Dorey's deaths, the deemed-finding argument regarding their status upon entering the property does not alter our analysis of the duty owed to them under the statute.
In Texas, a landowner or premises occupier owes to a trespasser only the duty not to injure the trespasser willfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence. Texas Utils. Elec. Co. v. Timmons, 947 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex. 1996); Flye, 50 S.W.3d at 648. A violation of this duty requires a contemporaneous activity operating at the time of the injury, not a passive condition existing on the premises. Flye, 50 S.W.3d at 649. "The acts or omissions in question refer to the activities or conduct of the occupier on the premises, not the conditions of the premises." Smither v. Texas Utils. Elec. Co., 824 S.W.2d 693, 695 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992, writ dism'd). Trespassers take the premises as they find them, and the occupier owes them no duty to warn them of a dangerous condition or to make the premises safe. Id.; Flye, 50 S.W.3d at 648; see also City of Lubbock v. Rule, 68 S.W.3d 853, 859 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.).
Thus, to prove gross negligence under this standard, the plaintiffs were obligated to produce evidence that the City and Flagship injured Kenny and Dorey by some contemporaneous activity or conduct. The plaintiffs argue only that the evidence presented showed the City and Flagship did not properly construct or maintain the pier nor did they warn Kenny and Dorey of a condition considered dangerous by the plaintiffs. But, there is no evidence in the record of gross negligence by a contemporaneous activity or conduct of either the City or Flagship. The City's and Flagship's issues based on this argument are sustained.
Having found no evidence of gross negligence by the City or Flagship, the City and Flagship are entitled to rendition of judgment in their favor. We reverse the judgment and render judgment that Willie Garza and Joyleen Garza, individually and as surviving parents of Kenneth Wayne Garza and as representatives of the estate of Kenneth Wayne Garza, George C. Fabain and Barbara Jean Fabain, individually and as surviving parents of Dorey Alice Fabain and as representatives of the estate of Dorey Alice Fabain take nothing.