Billelo v. Techline Services, L.P.

Citations: 372 S.W.3d 232; 2012 WL 2049539; 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4503Docket: No. 05-10-01113-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 7, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was made regarding a summary judgment favoring Techline Services, L.P. in a negligence claim by Tisha and Danielle Billelo. Techline filed a combined traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion, challenging all elements of the Billelos' claim. The trial court granted Techline's motion but did not specify the grounds for its ruling and subsequently severed all claims against Techline from those still pending. The Billelos raised four issues concerning alleged negligence: 1) Techline's actions in cutting and damaging a fence, 2) failing to repair the fence, 3) the cow escaping through the hole caused by Techline, and 4) whether Techline's actions proximately caused damages to Danielle Billelo.

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment based on proximate cause. It clarified that, in a traditional motion, the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact exists, while in a no-evidence motion, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The Billelos could not identify the cow's owner or explain how the cow ended up on the road the night of the accident, which occurred over four months after Techline completed its work. The court emphasized that proximate cause requires both cause in fact and foreseeability, which cannot be established through mere speculation. An act is considered a cause in fact only if it significantly contributes to the injury, rather than merely creating a condition that allows the injury to occur.

Even if the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred without the defendant's actions, the link between the defendant and the injuries may be too weak to establish legal causation. When Techline filed a no-evidence summary judgment motion regarding proximate cause, the Billelos were required to present evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact concerning foreseeability and cause in fact. Despite submitting over 100 pages of evidence, the Billelos did not establish a genuine issue on cause in fact. The trial court struck down most of their evidence due to hearsay objections, leaving only one piece upheld. The Billelos attempted to introduce deposition testimony not included in the original summary judgment record, arguing it was relevant because it was attached to an earlier motion. However, a non-movant cannot supplement the record on appeal with previously filed evidence, as the trial court only considers what is properly before it at the time the motion is heard. The Billelos' main evidence, speculative testimony from defendant James Lockridge, suggested Techline cut a fence when installing a power pole. Lockridge's claim lacked factual support and represented mere speculation, which cannot satisfy the burden of proof in negligence cases. Consequently, the evidence presented did not non-speculatively connect Techline to the fence damage, resulting in insufficient grounds to defeat the summary judgment.

The Billelos' arguments for reversal of the trial court's decision are unconvincing both factually and legally. They cite Jacobs-Cathey Co. v. Cockrum to assert that Techline’s actions were closely linked to the accident's proximate cause. In Jacobs-Cathey, the court found a direct connection between a defendant's negligence in leaving an air conditioning belt on a roof and a custodian's subsequent injury eight months later, as there were no intervening causes. However, in the Billelos' case, there is no similar direct connection. The evidence shows Techline set poles along the highway, but the only known cut in the fence was not linked to Techline, and the livestock involved had not grazed on neighboring properties owned by the Billelos. Testimony indicated that livestock frequently traversed the area, and there was no evidence that Techline cut the fence or that the cow accessed the highway through the discovered hole. Consequently, the link between Techline's actions and Danielle’s injuries is insufficient. The court affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Techline regarding proximate cause, overruled the Billelos' fourth issue, and found no need to address additional grounds for summary judgment. The court also upheld previous summary judgments in favor of Techline on gross negligence claims and affirmed the judgment concerning SLC McKinney.