Portillo v. Housing Authority of the City of El Paso

Court of Appeals of Texas

Portillo v. Housing Authority of the City of El Paso

652 S.W.2d 568, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 4520

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 18, 1983

Docket08-82-00226-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 652 S.W.2d 568 (Portillo v. Housing Authority of the City of El Paso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Portillo v. Housing Authority of the City of El Paso, 652 S.W.2d 568, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 4520 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SCHULTE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Appellee, defendant below. We affirm.

Appellant, as a boy of 8, lived with his parents in a housing project owned and maintained by Appellee. On February 27, 1974, Appellant climbed over the fence owned by Appellee. The fence divided the Appellee’s property from the railroad’s property. After climbing over the fence, Appellant caught a ride on a passing freight train. After riding a distance equal to about the length of five box cars, while trying to get off, Appellant slipped and fell *569 beneath the wheels resulting in the loss of Appellant’s right leg.

It is undisputed that the accident did not occur on Appellee’s property and that it was not caused by any instrumentality owned or controlled by Appellee. The case comes before us on review based solely on the unsworn pleadings. Although pleadings do not constitute summary judgment proof, summary judgment is warranted, however, if the plaintiff’s petition itself fails to state a legal claim or cause of action. Hidalgo v. Surety Savings and Loan Association, 462 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.1971). An occupier of premises has no greater duty than does the public generally regarding conditions existing outside his premises and not caused by the occupier. Howe v. Kroger Co. dba Kroger’s, 598 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas, 1980, no writ). An innkeeper is under no duty to a guest who is injured or endangered while he is away from the premises. Nor is a possessor of land under any such duty to one who has ceased to be an invitee. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 314A, comment C. Any plaintiff must plead (and ultimately prove upon a trial on the merits) the existence and violation of a legal duty owed to him by the defendant to establish tort liability. See Abalos v. Oil Development Co. of Texas, 544 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.1976). Appellant’s cited cases are readily distinguishable and do not support his appellate position. Appellant’s point of error that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

SCHULTE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Appellee, defendant below. We affirm.

Appellant, as a boy of 8, lived with his parents in a housing project owned and maintained by Appellee. On February 27, 1974, Appellant climbed over the fence owned by Appellee. The fence divided the Appellee’s property from the railroad’s property. After climbing over the fence, Appellant caught a ride on a passing freight train. After riding a distance equal to about the length of five box cars, while trying to get off, Appellant slipped and fell *569 beneath the wheels resulting in the loss of Appellant’s right leg.

It is undisputed that the accident did not occur on Appellee’s property and that it was not caused by any instrumentality owned or controlled by Appellee. The case comes before us on review based solely on the unsworn pleadings. Although pleadings do not constitute summary judgment proof, summary judgment is warranted, however, if the plaintiff’s petition itself fails to state a legal claim or cause of action. Hidalgo v. Surety Savings and Loan Association, 462 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.1971). An occupier of premises has no greater duty than does the public generally regarding conditions existing outside his premises and not caused by the occupier. Howe v. Kroger Co. dba Kroger’s, 598 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas, 1980, no writ). An innkeeper is under no duty to a guest who is injured or endangered while he is away from the premises. Nor is a possessor of land under any such duty to one who has ceased to be an invitee. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 314A, comment C. Any plaintiff must plead (and ultimately prove upon a trial on the merits) the existence and violation of a legal duty owed to him by the defendant to establish tort liability. See Abalos v. Oil Development Co. of Texas, 544 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.1976). Appellant’s cited cases are readily distinguishable and do not support his appellate position. Appellant’s point of error that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 S.W.2d 568, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 4520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portillo-v-housing-authority-of-the-city-of-el-paso-texapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack