Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rose Savage sued the City of Houston, United Airlines, Inc., and Kone, Inc. after an escalator in Terminal B at George Bush Intercontinental Airport allegedly stopped and restarted abruptly, throwing her backward and causing her to strike her head. She asserted a premises-liability claim against the City under the Texas Tort Claims Act, alleging that the City owned or controlled the premises and knew or should have known that the escalator posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
The City moved for traditional summary judgment based on governmental immunity. It argued that United leased and maintained the relevant premises, that Kone maintained the escalator as United’s subcontractor, and that the City therefore owed Savage no duty. Savage responded that the record did not establish that the City had relinquished control and requested a continuance for additional discovery. She submitted United’s discovery responses stating that the City retained control over the escalator. The trial court denied the City’s motion without specifying a reason.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed. Because the trial court did not identify the basis for its ruling, the City was required on appeal to challenge every independent ground that could support the denial of summary judgment. Savage’s supported request for a continuance to obtain further discovery was one such possible ground because the trial court had discretion to deny summary judgment to permit additional discovery.
The City’s appellate brief challenged the merits of Savage’s premises-liability claim but did not address her discovery-based request for a continuance. The court therefore accepted that unchallenged ground as supporting the trial court’s order and held that any claimed error concerning the City’s duty or Savage’s status on the property was harmless. The court did not resolve the merits of the City’s governmental-immunity defenses and dismissed all pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- When a trial court denies summary judgment without stating its reasons, the appellant must challenge every independent ground that could support the ruling.
- A supported request for additional discovery can independently justify denial of summary judgment, including a motion asserting governmental immunity.
- The court affirmed on appellate-preservation grounds and did not decide whether the City controlled the escalator, owed Savage a duty, or retained governmental immunity.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an interlocutory appeal involving governmental immunity remains subject to ordinary appellate briefing rules. A governmental entity cannot obtain reversal by addressing only its substantive immunity arguments when the nonmovant presented another independent basis for denying summary judgment.
For premises-liability litigants, the opinion also highlights the importance of developing evidence concerning control of leased property. Here, United’s discovery responses identifying the City as retaining control supported Savage’s request for more discovery and ultimately supplied an unchallenged basis for affirmance.