Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-91-050-CV,13-91-050-CV |
| Citation | 818 S.W.2d 183 |
| Parties | James R. DIEHL, et ux, Appellants, v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a Cable Services, Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ryan E. Stevens, William N. Ambler, Law Offices of Ryan E. Stevens, Corpus Christi, for appellants.
Thomas E. Nye, Brin & Brin, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Before SEERDEN, KENNEDY and HINOJOSA, JJ.
James Diehl appeals from a summary judgment granted against him and in favor of Rocky Mountain Communications (RMC), in a suit alleging intentional spoliation of evidence. By five points of error, Diehl complains that the court erred in granting the summary judgment because he pleaded a viable cause of action, because the court incorrectly applied the applicable statute of limitations, and because genuine issues of material fact existed which raised questions regarding the intentional destruction of evidence.
On December 9, 1985, while Diehl was employed by RMC, he fell from a ladder on company premises. On December 20, 1985, Diehl hired a lawyer to pursue possible causes of action. On January 20, 1986, RMC was burglarized, and the ladder from which Diehl fell was one of the items stolen. Diehl was informed of this burglary no later than January 30, 1986. On August 30, 1989, Diehl sued RMC for intentional spoliation of evidence, contending that RMC intentionally destroyed the ladder that caused Diehl's injuries and thus precluded any possibility of recovery from the ladder's manufacturer. RMC moved for summary judgment, claiming that Diehl's pleading of intentional spoliation of evidence is not a cognizable cause of action in Texas, that Diehl is barred by the statute of limitations, and that Diehl failed to present any evidence which would raise a fact issue regarding intentional spoliation by RMC.
The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985). In deciding whether or not there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true. Id. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in his favor. Id. Once the movant has established a right to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to respond and present to the trial court any issues that would preclude summary judgment. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., F019296
...action]; accord, Panich v. Iron Wood Products Corp. (1989) 179 Mich.App. 136, 445 N.W.2d 795, 797; Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications (Tex.Ct.App.1991) 818 S.W.2d 183, 184; Edwards v. Louisville Ladder Co. (W.D.La.1992) 796 F.Supp. 966; Wilson v. Beloit Corp. (8th Cir.1990) 921 F.2d 765......
-
Long v. NCNB-Texas Nat. Bank
...judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979); Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 183, 184 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied). Movant's appellate burden demands that we resolve each doubt and indulge every reasonable inf......
-
Carr v. Mobile Video Tapes, Inc.
...judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-80 (Tex.1979); Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 183, 184 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied). The Carrs have failed to raise such a fact Accordingly, we must affirm the summary judgmen......
-
5636 Alpha Road v. NCNB Texas Nat. Bank, Civ. A. No. 3:93-CV-1304-D.
...is to rely on a Texas case that discussed the theory but neither accepted nor rejected it. See Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 183, 184 (Tex.App.1991, writ denied). This hardly supports the proposition that Texas recognizes such a claim. This federal court will not ......
-
Discovery
...warranted); Brewer v. Dowling , 862 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993, writ denied); Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc. , 818 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied); Phennel v. Roach , 789 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990); Fuller v. Preston State Bank , 667 ......
-
Table of cases
...the City and County of San Francisco , 60 Cal.2d at 723 (Cal. 1964), §§13:5.A.1, 13:6.B.4 Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc. , 818 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied), §40:11.G Dieter v. Baker Serv. Tools , 739 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, writ de......
-
Discovery
...warranted); Brewer v. Dowling , 862 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993, writ denied); Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc. , 818 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied); Phennel v. Roach , 789 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990); Fuller v. Preston State Bank , 667 ......
-
Table of cases
...the City and County of San Francisco , 60 Cal.2d at 723 (Cal. 1964), §§13:5.A.1, 13:6.B.4 Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications, Inc. , 818 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied), §40:11.G Dieter v. Baker Serv. Tools , 739 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, writ de......