Anthony W. Spencer v. Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-17-00099-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 23, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas addressed the appeal of Anthony W. Spencer against the Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA) regarding the trial court's grant of CCRTA's motion for summary judgment. Spencer contended that the trial court erred by striking evidence and granting the summary judgment. The background reveals that Spencer allegedly suffered an injury on September 11, 2014, while trying to board a CCRTA bus. He claimed that after knocking on the bus door, which was closed, the driver signaled him away, and as the bus moved off, it ran over his left big toe. 

Spencer did not realize he was injured until later and was later diagnosed with a contusion. Initially, he filed a negligence claim in small claims court for $10,000, which was dismissed, leading to an appeal in county court. During the proceedings, CCRTA filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In December 2016, Spencer mentioned audio recordings relevant to the incident, but he failed to produce them. The court granted CCRTA's motion to strike the recordings and subsequently granted the summary judgment. 

Spencer's first appellate issue concerned the striking of the audio recordings, where the court applied an abuse of discretion standard for review. The court noted that it can only reverse if the trial court acted unreasonably or arbitrarily. The excerpt emphasizes the need for the complaining party to demonstrate that the evidentiary error likely resulted in an improper judgment rather than proving that the judgment would have been different but for the error. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decisions.

To succeed, a party must show that the judgment hinges on specific evidence that was excluded or admitted. The review encompasses the entire record to assess whether this burden is met. If there is any valid basis for a district court's evidentiary ruling, the decision will be upheld. Spencer argues that the trial court improperly struck three audio recordings made on the accident day, which included attempts to board a bus and statements made to police and medical personnel. CCRTA contends that the recordings were struck because Spencer failed to produce them as directed and that they were redundant to his deposition testimony. During a 2016 hearing, CCRTA sought a continuance to obtain the recordings, which it only learned of after Spencer's response to a summary judgment motion. Spencer claimed to have filed the recordings with the court clerk and offered to provide duplicates. The trial court ordered him to produce the recordings, but by late January 2017, he had not complied. CCRTA indicated lack of compliance during a hearing, leading the court to grant CCRTA's request to strike the recordings due to failure to comply with discovery rules. The trial court's decision to exclude the evidence was not an abuse of discretion, as Spencer did not demonstrate that the judgment depended on the excluded evidence, which was cumulative of other presented information. Consequently, Spencer's first issue was overruled. Regarding his second issue, which challenges the summary judgment granted to CCRTA, it clarifies that a no-evidence summary judgment requires the nonmoving party to provide evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact for each contested element, assessed under a legal sufficiency standard.

In evaluating a no-evidence summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in favor of the non-movant, accepting their evidence as true, and making reasonable inferences while disregarding opposing evidence unless it is irrefutable. Under Rule 166(a), a party may seek summary judgment without presenting evidence by claiming there is no evidence for essential elements of a claim or defense, which the adverse party must then counter with evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate duty, breach, and damages caused by the breach. Proximate cause involves cause in fact and foreseeability, which cannot be established by speculation. 

Spencer contends that CCRTA, as a common carrier, owed him a heightened duty of care while he was at a bus station attempting to board. Texas law defines common carriers as those who transport passengers for hire, holding them to a higher standard of care. A person is considered a passenger when they intend to board, even without a ticket. However, a passenger-carrier relationship requires a contract, either expressed or implied, and the duty of care may not apply once the carrier is in motion. Therefore, Spencer must prove the existence of a passenger-carrier relationship with CCRTA before establishing any duty.

Spencer's testimony demonstrates that no contract of carriage existed between him and the bus driver, which is necessary to establish a higher duty of care. He interpreted the driver's head shake as a denial of entry onto the bus, and his injury occurred when he improperly stepped off the curb into the street, rather than following the standard boarding procedure. Consequently, the CCRTA only owed him a duty of ordinary care. Spencer did not provide evidence to suggest that the driver was negligent or aware of his presence when leaving the bus stop. The driver checked his mirror and acted within the bounds of ordinary care. As Spencer failed to prove that CCRTA owed him a duty that was breached, his negligence claim could not succeed. The trial court's summary judgment favoring CCRTA was upheld, dismissing Spencer's claims regarding the trial court's discretion in striking evidence and granting summary judgment.