DeWolf v. Kohler
Decision Date | 18 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 14–13–00778–CV.,14–13–00778–CV. |
Parties | Tammy DeWOLF, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Terry Sean DeWolf and as Next Friend of Christina DeWolf, Amanda DeWolf, and Kaitlyn DeWolf, Appellant v. Richie KOHLER, Oceanic Ventures, Inc., M/V John Jack, A & E Television Networks, ITI Holdings, Inc., and Lamartek, Inc. d/b/a Dive Rite, Appellees. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
David McKeand, Houston, for Appellant.
MV John Jack, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ, Nicole Shirley Bakare, Houston, Catherine Lewis Robb, Austin, Laura Lee Prather, Austin, James E. Doyle, Houston, for Appellees.
Panel consists of Justices CHRISTOPHER and BUSBY, and Visiting Judge DORFMAN.*
We also conclude that the plaintiff's appellate complaints of improper jury argument were not preserved for our review. Finally, we do not address her appellate arguments about the legal effect of a release; because no one was found to be at fault, a release of liability does not affect the outcome of the case. We accordingly affirm the trial court's judgment.
In the summer of 2008, Terry Sean DeWolf was one of a group of people scuba diving at the shipwreck of the Andrea Doria, which rests on the ocean floor more than fifty miles from the shore of Nantucket, Massachusetts. He successfully completed the first day of diving. On the morning of July 30, 2008, the second day of the trip, Terry was seen entering the water, but he did not resurface when expected. After hours of searching, his body was located on, and recovered from, the ocean floor. In a draft autopsy report dated August 1, 2008, the local medical examiner tentatively identified the cause of death as drowning. The statement was qualified with the notation “PFS” for “pending further study.” After tissue samples of Terry's heart were reviewed, the cause of death was revised to reflect that Terry died of natural causes, namely, myocarditis
.
In July 2010, Terry's wife Tammy filed suit in a Harris County district court on behalf of herself, Terry's estate, and Terry's three children, each of whom asserted claims arising from Terry's death. She amended her petition several times to assert claims against the following defendants, among others:
For the reasons set forth below, Tammy did not prevail in her claims against any of these defendants.
The M/V John Jack did not answer the suit, and when Tammy moved for a default judgment, the trial court dismissed the vessel sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied Tammy's motion for reconsideration and her motion to sever the claims against the vessel to allow an earlier appeal.
A & E filed a special appearance contesting the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the special appearance, and Tammy did not pursue an interlocutory appeal of that ruling. After the deadline to file an interlocutory appeal had passed, Tammy filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Shortly before trial two years later, Tammy again moved unsuccessfully for reconsideration.
ITI filed a combined motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment on Tammy's claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”) and the federal Death on the High Seas Act.4 The trial court granted the motion without stating the grounds.5
Lamartek filed a combined motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment in which it addressed Tammy's claim under the Death on the High Seas Act and many of her state-law claims. In her response, Tammy discussed her DTPA claim as if she had expressly asserted such a claim against Lamartek. Lamartek stated in its summary-judgment reply that Tammy had not alleged a DTPA cause of action against it, but it nevertheless addressed the claim.
The trial court initially denied the summary-judgment motion. Lamartek filed two motions for reconsideration—first on the ground of limitations, and then on both limitations and causation grounds, expressly incorporating all of the arguments raised and evidence produced on these topics in its summary-judgment motion, its summary-judgment reply, its first motion for reconsideration, and its reply to Tammy's response to that motion. The trial court then signed an order granting the motion for reconsideration on limitations grounds.
The case proceeded to a jury trial against Kohler. The jury was asked if “a wrongful act, neglect or default of a vessel or a person proximately caused” Terry's death, and jurors unanimously answered, “No.” In answer to a separate question, the jury also found that Terry “expressly assumed the risk of injury or death” in diving at the wreck of the Andrea Doria. The trial court incorporated both findings into the final judgment.
Tammy appeals the judgment as to each of these five defendants. She did not include a statement of issues in her brief, but instead summarized her argument under eight headings with multiple subheadings. We first address her arguments directed to the jurisdictional rulings, then her arguments concerning the summary judgments, and finally, her arguments directed to events that occurred during the jury trial.
Tammy asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing the M/V John Jack because a court can acquire personal jurisdiction over a vessel even if it is not in Texas waters; however, the vessel did not file a special appearance contesting personal jurisdiction. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 120a. Because the trial court acted sua sponte, it instead appears that it dismissed the vessel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A court is obliged to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction and must consider the question sua sponte even if it is not challenged by a party. See Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dall. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 358 (Tex.2004), superseded by statute on other grounds, Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1150, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3783, 3783 (current version at Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.034 (West 2013) ), as recognized in Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500, 511 (Tex.2012) ; Gantt v. Gantt, 208 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). This principal is reflected in the order dismissing the vessel. There, the trial court wrote,
Although Tammy does not specifically address subject-matter jurisdiction in her brief, we note that the trial court's ruling was correct. It is well-established that “[a]n in rem suit against a vessel is ... distinctively an admiralty proceeding, and is hence within the exclusive province of the federal courts.” Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 446–47, 114 S.Ct. 981, 985, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (citing The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. 411, 4 Wall. 411, 431, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1867) ); cf. Stier v. Reading & Bates Corp., 992 S.W.2d 423, 428–29 (Tex.1999) ( ); Exxon Corp. v. Choo, 881 S.W.2d 301, 304 (Tex.1994) (same). Thus, if the trial court had not dismissed the case against the vessel, we would have been obliged to do so. We accordingly overrule this issue.
Unlike the M/V John Jack, A & E did file a special appearance contesting the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Before addressing the merits of the trial court's order granting A & E's special appearance, we must address A & E's argument that we lack...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonsmara Natural Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC
...Ltd. v. Four Horsemen Auto Grp. , No. 05-14-01415-CV, 2016 WL 3964731, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 20, 2016, no pet.) ; DeWolf v. Kohler , 452 S.W.3d 373, 383–84 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) ; Brawley v. Huddleston , No. 02-11-00358-CV, 2012 WL 6049013, at *3 (Tex. App.—F......
-
Mustafa v. Americo Energy Res., LLC
...2014, pet. denied) (citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp. , 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999) ); see also DeWolf v. Kohler , 452 S.W.3d 373, 389 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).Under the circumstances, Appellee effectively established that the injuries at i......
-
Fallon v. Univ. of Tex. MD Anderson Cancer Ctr.
...(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ("A court must assure itself that there is jurisdiction to hear a suit."); DeWolf v. Kohler , 452 S.W.3d 373, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) ("A court is obliged to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction and......
-
Gallier v. Woodbury Fin. Servs., Inc.
...triggers the 'objectively reasonable' inquiry-notice standard. Altai, 918 S.W.2d at 455; DeWolf v. Kohler, 452 S.W.3d 373, 391 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, reh'g overruled) (the discovery rule "delay[s] accrual of the claim only during the time it would take for a reasonably dilige......
-
CHAPTER 5 Interlocutory Appeals
...Dist.] 2017, no pet.).[139] In re S.M.H., 523 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).[140] DeWolf v. Kohler, 452 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).[141] DeWolf v. Kohler, 452 S.W.3d 373, 384 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). See ......