American Industries Life Ins. v. Ruvalcaba

• Decision Date: 20 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. 14-99-00077-CV.,14-99-00077-CV.
• Citation: 64 S.W.3d 126
• Parties: AMERICAN INDUSTRIES LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Jose RUVALCABA and Maribel Ruvalcaba, Individually and as Next Friends of Johnathan Ruvalcaba, A Minor, Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

64 S.W.3d 126

AMERICAN INDUSTRIES LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v.Jose RUVALCABA and Maribel Ruvalcaba, Individually and as Next Friends of Johnathan Ruvalcaba, A Minor, Appellees.

No. 14-99-00077-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

September 20, 2001.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions on Overruling of Second Rehearing January 10, 2002.

Philip Robert Brinson, Houston, W. Wendell Hall, Renee Forinash McElhaney, San Antonio, for appellants.

Albert M. Hassler II, Richard P. Hogan, Houston, for appellees.

Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, FOWLER, and EDELMAN.

MAJORITY OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

ANDERSON, Justice.

We overrule appellees' motion for rehearing.We withdraw the opinion issued in this case on March 15, 2001, and we issue the following opinion in its place.

In this premises liability case, appellantAmerican Industries Life Insurance Company("American Industries") appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of appellees and plaintiffs below, Jose Ruvalcaba and Maribel Ruvalcaba, individually and as next friends of Johnathan Ruvalcaba, a minor ("Ruvalcabas").For the reasons stated below, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment that the Ruvalcabas take nothing.

Background and Procedural History

Jose Ruvalcaba worked at a private security company on the second floor of a two-story office building owned and managed by American Industries ("Building").On March 7, 1996, Jose's wife, Maribel Ruvalcaba, and his two-year old son, Johnathan, paid a noon-hour visit to Jose's workplace for the purpose of taking him to lunch.This was the first time that Maribel or Johnathan had ever been up to the offices of Jose's employer.When they arrived, Jose was busy "discussing a few accounts" with his boss, and so Maribel decided to take Johnathan and wait in the car.On their way out, Maribel and Johnathan started to descend a staircase that had an "open" handrail that did not comport with the current City of Houston Building Code.Maribel testified that, while they were descending the staircase, Johnathan fell through the open bannister, landed on his head on the ground, and lost consciousness for about five minutes.

Johnathan's parents took him to the emergency room at Ben Taub Hospital.Johnathan's treating physician found no contusions, lacerations, or broken bones.Johnathan had an abrasion on his scalp.Johnathan's CT scan showed no abnormalities.Johnathan was kept overnight for observation and released the next day.At a follow-up visit one week after the incident, Jose reported that Johnathan's behavior had changed markedly since his fall.

A pediatric neurologist later examined Johnathan and concluded that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury from the fall, resulting in permanent damage.A pediatric psychologist specializing in life-care planning estimated that, given the child's injuries and the behavioral problems caused by the fall, it would cost $1,800,000 to care for Johnathan over the course of his lifetime.

Jose and Maribel filed a personal injury suit, individually, and as next friends of their son, Johnathan, against American Industries.The Ruvalcabas alleged that Johnathan was an invitee at the time of the occurrence made the basis of this suit.The Ruvalcabas alleged that the open staircase in the Building constituted an "unreasonably unsafe condition" that American Industries had failed to make safe or warn them about.The Ruvalcabas claimed that American Industries was guilty of negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence.The Ruvalcabas sought damages for Johnathan's past and future physical pain and suffering, mental and emotional anguish, medical expenses, loss of earnings, physical impairment, and loss of mental faculties proximately caused by American Industries' alleged negligence.

The parties agreed to a bench trial.The trial court granted American Industries' motion for directed verdict on the Ruvalcabas' allegation of gross negligence.The trial court found in favor of the Ruvalcabas on their negligence¹ claim and signed a final judgment awarding Jose and Maribel as next friends of Johnathan $2,156,054.79² for future medical care,³ $2,156,054.79 for past and future physical pain and mental anguish, $2,156,054.79 for past and future physical impairment, and $658,794.52 for future lost earning capacity.The trial court awarded Jose and Maribel $598,904.11 each for loss of filial consortium and an additional $59,890.41 to Maribel on her bystander claim.The total amount of the trial court's judgment was $8,384,657.52 plus post-judgment interest and costs of court.

The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.The trial court found, among other things, as follows: (1) that American Industries is liable to the Ruvalcabas as owner of the premises where the injury occurred; (2) that American Industries' negligence proximately caused Johnathan's injuries; (3) that American Industries' negligence liability results from a condition of which it was actually aware or had constructive notice before Johnathan was injured; (4) that American Industries' liability is based on a negligent activity or instrumentality on its premises; (5) in the alternative, that American Industries is liable because the Ruvalcabas were business invitees on the premises of American Industries and because American Industries breached its negligence duty to these business invitees; (6) that Maribel is entitled to recover under a bystander theory; and (7) that Maribel and Jose are both entitled to recover for loss of filial consortium based on Johnathan's injuries.

The trial court denied American Industries' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the alternative, Motion to ModifyCorrect or Reform the Final Judgment.On appeal, American Industries argues, among other things, that there is no evidence of the following: (1) that Johnathan was an invitee; (2) that American Industries breached its duty to Johnathan; and (3) that Johnathan suffered any of the damages awarded by the trial court.American Industries also argues that Maribel and Jose may not recover under their filial consortium and bystander claims because Johnathan is not entitled to any recovery.

Standard of Review

In the issues that we rule on in this opinion, American Industries contends that there is no evidence to support the trial court's judgment in this case.⁴The trial court's findings of fact have the same force and dignity as a jury verdict, and this court reviews sufficiency challenges to findings of fact by the same standards that are applied in reviewing a jury's findings.Anderson v. City of Seven Points,806 S.W.2d 791, 794(Tex.1991).When reviewing a no-evidence challenge, this court may consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the challenged findings, and this court disregards all evidence and inferences to the contrary.Texarkana Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Murdock,946 S.W.2d 836, 838(Tex.1997).This court may sustain a no-evidence challenge if the record reveals one of the following:

(1) the complete absence of a vital fact;

(2)the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact;

(3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or

(4) the evidence established conclusively the opposite of the vital fact.

Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez,977 S.W.2d 328, 334(Tex.1998).More than a scintilla of evidence exists where the evidence supporting the finding, as a whole, rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner,953 S.W.2d 706, 711(Tex.1997).When this court sustains a no-evidence point, it must render judgment for the appellant.Vista Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lewis,709 S.W.2d 176(Tex.1986).

Is There Any Evidence of a Negligent Activity?

The duty of an owner or occupier of land to keep the premises in a safe condition may subject the owner or occupier to liability in two situations: (1) those arising from a defect in the premises, and (2) those arising from an activity or instrumentality.Redinger v. Living, Inc.,689 S.W.2d 415, 417(Tex.1985).To recover on a premises-defect theory, a person must have been injured by a condition on the property, rather than an activity or instrumentality.SeeKeetch v. Kroger Co.,845 S.W.2d 262, 264(Tex.1992).To recover for injuries sustained as a result of a negligent activity or instrumentality, the plaintiff must have been injured by or as a contemporaneous result of the defendant's activity or instrumentality rather than by a condition created thereby.Keetch,845 S.W.2d at 264.

The trial court found that American Industries was liable, in part, under a negligent activity or instrumentality theory.On appeal, the Ruvalcabas do not defend this finding or cite any evidence in the record to support it.We have reviewed the entire record on appeal and applied the appropriate standard of review; however, we find no evidence to support the trial court's finding that Johnathan's injuries were caused by a contemporaneous activity or instrumentality of American Industries as opposed to a condition created thereby.Keetch,845 S.W.2d at 264;Wochner v. Johnson,875 S.W.2d 470, 473-74(Tex.App.-Waco 1994, no writ)(no recovery under negligent activity theory because, as a matter of law, case involved condition of stairs rather than contemporaneous activity).There is no evidence in the record to support a recovery by the Ruvalcabas against American Industries under a negligent activity or instrumentality theory.

Is There Any Evidence That Johnathan Was a Business Invitee?

In this case, the trial court also found that Johnathan and his mother were "business invitees" and that American Industries, as owner of the premises, breached its duty to Johnathan as a business invitee.In...