Centava Dozier v. AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-09-00186-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 5, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Centava Dozier appealed a summary judgment decision from the 348th District Court of Tarrant County, favoring AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. (collectively “American”). Dozier's appeal followed the trial court's denial of her motions to compel discovery and for continuance, as well as the granting of American's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. 

The factual background reveals that in March 2006, Dozier, a passenger on an American flight, experienced an incident in which a fellow passenger exposed himself and left semen in her hair while she was asleep. She reported the incident to a flight attendant, leading to the man’s arrest upon landing. In March 2008, Dozier initiated a lawsuit against American alleging negligence, gross negligence, and res ipsa loquitor. During the discovery phase, she served two sets of requests to which American responded. However, on February 3, 2009, American filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. 

Dozier countered with her affidavit, her attorney's affidavit, and incident reports but also filed a motion to compel, arguing that American’s discovery responses were inadequate, and a motion for continuance to delay the summary judgment hearing until after her motion to compel could be heard. The trial court denied both motions, stating the motion for continuance was improperly filed and that Dozier was late regarding her motion to compel. The court also sustained American's objections to her summary judgment evidence and granted summary judgment in favor of American. Dozier subsequently perfected her appeal, contending the trial court abused its discretion in its rulings.

An abuse of discretion standard is applied when reviewing a trial court's rulings on motions to compel and for continuance. The appellate court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court but assesses whether the trial court's actions were arbitrary and unreasonable, constituting a clear and prejudicial error of law. A trial court's evidentiary ruling is upheld if there is any legitimate basis for it.

Dozier filed her motion to compel on February 13, 2009, nearly three months after American's last responses to her discovery requests and just before the end of the discovery period, following American's no-evidence summary judgment motion. The trial court noted Dozier had ample time to file the motion earlier and expressed a lack of sympathy for her delay. Consequently, the court concluded that the denial of her motion to compel was not an abuse of discretion, as Dozier failed to diligently pursue the necessary discovery.

Regarding the motion for continuance, Dozier sought to delay the summary judgment hearing until after a hearing on the motion to compel and further discovery. However, she was denied the continuance for the same reasons as the motion to compel. The failure to diligently use civil procedure rules for discovery does not justify a continuance. Additionally, her motion did not comply with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requirements, which mandate supporting affidavits detailing the evidence sought, its materiality, and evidence of due diligence in obtaining it.

The affidavit of diligence must provide specific details about the diligence exercised; vague claims are inadequate (Rocha, 69 S.W.3d at 319). A party that does not diligently pursue discovery is not entitled to a continuance (Wood Oil Distrib., 751 S.W.2d at 865). In this case, Dozier's motion for continuance lacked sufficient detail about her efforts to obtain the desired discovery, merely asserting her inability to secure testimony and evidence despite purported diligence. Neither the supporting affidavit from her attorney nor the motion to compel provided a clear account of her diligence in discovery. Consequently, Dozier did not meet the requirements of rule 252, leading to the conclusion that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying her motion for continuance. 

Regarding Dozier's second issue, she contended that the trial court erred in granting American's no-evidence summary judgment. American argued that Dozier failed to present evidence for each element of her negligence claim, and her claims of res ipsa loquitur and gross negligence were not independent causes of action. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), after a reasonable period for discovery, a party without the burden of proof can move for summary judgment by stating that there is no evidence for essential elements of the opposing party's claim. The trial court must grant the motion unless the nonmovant provides evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact. Dozier's evidence consisted of her affidavit detailing the incident and its emotional impact on her, along with reports from the pilot and flight attendants. However, she needed to demonstrate that American owed her a legal duty, breached that duty, and caused her damages, which she failed to do, affirming the propriety of American's no-evidence summary judgment.

The trial court upheld American's objections to Dozier's summary judgment evidence, finding it inadequate to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the elements of duty, breach, and causation in her negligence claim. Dozier did not provide evidence showing that American breached any legal duty owed to her. The court noted that the existence of a legal duty is determined by the surrounding facts, with a general principle that individuals are not obligated to protect others from third-party criminal acts unless specific relationships or circumstances exist. Dozier argued that American, as a common carrier, owed her a heightened duty of care, claiming its employees should have monitored passengers. However, the court emphasized that a duty is only imposed if the risk of harm is foreseeable, which Dozier failed to demonstrate. Her evidence did not support the assertion that American should have anticipated the alleged dangers. Additionally, Dozier did not successfully show that any breach of duty by American was the proximate cause of her injuries, as she merely reiterated legal standards and made unsubstantiated claims without presenting concrete evidence linking American’s actions to her damages. The court concluded that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Dozier, she did not provide sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding her negligence claim, leading to the overruling of her second issue.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed after rejecting Dozier's two issues. If Dozier's negligence claim fails, her claims for gross negligence and res ipsa loquitur will also fail, as res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule that infers negligence and not a distinct cause of action. Gross negligence also requires a finding of ordinary negligence, meaning recovery is unavailable if there is no supporting evidence for negligence claims. Dozier's affidavit from her attorney was relevant only to a motion for continuance and a motion to compel. The trial court was not obligated to allow Dozier to amend her evidence since most of American's objections were substantive defects, and Dozier did not request a continuance or an opportunity to cure any defects, thus failing to preserve this issue for review.