HOUSTON — The First Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling denying the City of Houston’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging that a woman was injured while riding an escalator at the airport.
According to the court’s Oct. 2 opinion, Rose Savage filed suit against the city of Houston, United Airlines, and Kone Elevators and Escalators, alleging that she sustained injuries in a terminal at George Bush Intercontinental Airport when the escalator she was on abruptly stopped and restarted, throwing her backward and causing her to strike her head.
Savage asserted a premises liability claim against the city, alleging that it owned the premises, and that the escalator was a condition that posed an unreasonable risk or harm that it should have known about.
The city answered, denying the allegations and asserting governmental immunity. In its motion for summary judgment, the city argued that it was not liable because Savage’s alleged injury occurred in Terminal B, which is primarily leased and maintained by United, and on an escalator that was maintained by the airline through its maintenance subcontractor, Kone.
The trial court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment without specifying its reasons.
On appeal, the city argued that the trial court erred because it lacked jurisdiction over Savage’s premises liability claim for two reasons. First, the city asserts that it leased the premises in question to United and therefore owed no duty of care to Savage. And secondly that Savage was required, but failed, to allege that the city had actual knowledge of the purported defective condition or that it was grossly negligent.
“Here, the trial court did not state the basis for its denial of the City’s motion, and thus, the City needed to challenge each possible ground for the adverse ruling,” the opinion states.
“In its brief on appeal, the City does not address Savage’s request for a continuance to obtain discovery. Because the City does not address or argue error with respect to one of the asserted grounds that could have supported the trial court’s order, and because we must affirm the denial of a summary judgment motion if it can be sustained on any ground relied upon by the trial court, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying the City summary judgment.”
Appeals case No. 01-24-00768-CV
