Simien v. La Quinta Inn & Suites
| Decision Date | 30 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 05-20-00441-CV |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | RAMONA SIMIEN, Appellant v. LA QUINTA INN & SUITES, Appellee |
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-12796
Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Garcia
Appellant Ramona Simien appeals from the trial court's summary judgment for appellee La Quinta Inn & Suites. Simien sued La Quinta for injuries she allegedly suffered from being subjected to cigarette smoke and pet urine odors while staying at a La Quinta location in Dallas, Texas. La Quinta moved for no-evidence summary judgment on Simien's claims, and the trial court granted La Quinta's motion. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
In June 2016, Simien traveled with her parents, sister, and brother-in-law from her home in Fresno, Texas, to attend a wedding in Dallas, Texas. In preparation for the trip Simien's brother-in-law booked two suites, one for Simien and one for the remaining individuals, at a La Quinta hotel in Dallas. When Simien and her family arrived on June 25 2016, Simien confirmed with the front desk clerk that her assigned room was non-smoking and not near any pets. Simien alleges that she also "went through [her] medical history," which includes kidney disease, diabetes, and asthma, with the clerk. She was initially sent to the wrong room. She returned to the front desk and was directed to the correct room, which the clerk assured was nonsmoking and clean.
Simien her sister, and her brother-in-law went to the assigned suite. Simien contends that upon entry, she noticed the room smelled like cigarette smoke and pet urine, and there was pet hair on the furniture. Her sister and brother-in-law agreed. The three of them returned to the front desk to complain about the odor and pet hair and ask if Simien could be moved to another suite. The front desk clerk said there were no other suites available. Simien told the clerk that she would be away at the wedding for several hours and asked that the room be cleaned while she was away. The clerk assured Simien that she would have the room cleaned. Simien returned to the room to change clothes for the wedding, and she and her family left. She stopped by the front desk to inform the clerk that she was leaving. The clerk again confirmed that she would have the room cleaned while Simien was out.
After the wedding, Simien returned to her room at approximately 12:45 a.m. on June 26, 2016. She claims that the room still smelled of cigarette smoke and pet urine, but she also smelled "something was sprayed in the room," "like an air freshener." Thus, she concluded the hotel staff did not clean the room as promised but merely sprayed air freshener. Simien did not complain that the room was still unclean or request another room but went to bed because it was late, and she was tired.
She contends that when she awoke the next day, she was "congested and could barely breathe" and her face was "a little swollen." She also contends that she started running a fever during the night. Simien and her family ate breakfast and left the hotel. She did not complain about the room again before leaving. Despite feeling ill, Simien went to work the following day. While at work, Simien began feeling worse, and a co-worker took her to the doctor. Simien complained of a fever, difficulty breathing, and a headache. The doctor diagnosed her with an acute upper respiratory infection and prescribed an antibiotic. Simien contends that she missed work the entire week due to the illness. She further contends that her headaches continued after completing the antibiotic.
A month after the wedding, on July 25, 2016, Simien went to the emergency room complaining of a headache and that she could not "move [her] neck." The emergency room doctors prescribed pain medication and recommended that she see a neurologist. She saw her neurologist on July 27, 2016. According to Simien, her neurologist Simien's neurologist administered injections into Simien's neck to address her "locked" neck. Simien claims no further illness or injury arising from her hotel stay.
Simien sued La Quinta on June 25, 2018, for negligence and premises liability. Her negligence claim arises from La Quinta's alleged failure "to properly clean [her] room when notified of the hazards in the room." Her premises liability claim similarly arises from La Quinta's failure to "exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk" posed by the "dangerous condition [that] existed on [La Quinta's] premises." According to Simien's original petition, the allegedly dangerous condition is that "[t]he room was a smoking room and smelled of dog urine."
La Quinta filed its motion for no-evidence summary judgment on both claims. On Simien's negligence claim, La Quinta contended that Simien had produced no evidence of any affirmative act by La Quinta that led to her injury. Rather, Simien had alleged only that La Quinta failed to act, which cannot support a negligence claim. Moreover, La Quinta's act of cleaning the room was not contemporaneous with Simien's alleged injury, as required to prevail under a negligence theory. As to Simien's premises liability claim, La Quinta contended that Simien produced no evidence that the alleged condition created an unreasonable risk of harm. Specifically, La Quinta contended that Simien produced no evidence that there was actual cigarette smoke or dog urine in the room or that "the scent of smoke and dog urine creates an unreasonable risk of harm." La Quinta further contended that she had produced no evidence that La Quinta did not use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate any such risk.
Simien filed a response to La Quinta's summary judgment motion and offered her deposition transcript and medical records as evidence. Her response, however, addressed only her premises liability claim. She did not address La Quinta's motion regarding her negligence claim. As to her premises liability claim, Simien argued that there was evidence that she "requested the room be cleaned, and that the room was not cleaned, or cleaned inadequately or improperly," and that "the unsanitary nature of the room" caused her alleged injury. She specifically alleged "[t]he unreasonably dangerous condition of the premises was the room full of smoke, pet hair and urine." She further alleged that La Quinta "was placed on notice of the defective nature of the room" when she "explained why a room free of smoke, pet hair and urine was necessary because of her health issues," and that she believed the room was not cleaned but "only sprayed with air freshener." The trial court conducted a hearing and granted La Quinta's motion. This appeal followed.
After an adequate time for discovery, the party without the burden of proof may, without presenting evidence, move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to support an essential element of the nonmovant's claim or defense. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(i). The motion must specifically state the elements for which there is no evidence. Id.; Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009). The trial court must grant the motion unless the nonmovant produces summary judgment evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) & cmt.; Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008).
When reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion. Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex. 2006). We review a no-evidence summary judgment for evidence that would enable reasonable and fair-minded jurors to differ in their conclusions. Hamilton, 249 S.W.3d at 426 (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex. 2005)). We credit evidence favorable to the nonmovant if reasonable jurors could, and we disregard evidence contrary to the nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not. Timpte Indus., 286 S.W.3d at 310 (quoting Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex. 2006)). If the nonmovant brings forward more than a scintilla of probative evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact, then a no-evidence summary judgment is not proper. Smith v. O'Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2009); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1030 (2004).
"More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence 'rises to a level that would enable reasonable, fair-minded persons to differ in their conclusions.'" Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 (quoting Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997)). "Less than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence is 'so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion' of a fact." Id. (quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)).
In one issue, Simien contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on her premises liability claim because there is sufficient evidence she was injured by an unreasonably dangerous condition on La Quinta's property.[1] La Quinta contends, however, that Simien failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the existence of an unreasonably dangerous condition and La Quinta's reasonable efforts to reduce or eliminate any such risk. La Quinta further contends that Simien waived her challenge to La Quinta's use of reasonable efforts by failing to brief the issue.
The parties agree that Simien was an invitee...
To continue reading
Request your trial