HOUSTON — The 14th Court of Appeals has affirmed in part, and reversed in part, a ruling dismissing a personal injury lawsuit against Spec’s Family Partners.
The litigation was brought by Cynthia Handley, who allegedly sustained injuries when she fell outside a Spec’s liquor store.
Court records show Spec’s filed a rule 91a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, contending that Handley’s claim has no basis in law or fact because her claims arose “out of an alleged incident that occurred on premises that (Spec’s) did not possess at the time the alleged incident occurred,” and that Spec’s “did not control or operate the business that maintains the premises.”
Handley did not respond to Spec’s 91a motion to dismiss, and the trial court granted Spec’s motion, dismissing Handley’s claims with prejudice and expressly noting on the order that “no one filed a response to this Motion.”
In response, Handley filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
On appeal, she challenged the judgment dismissing her premises liability and negligent-activity claims against Spec’s, as well as the trial court’s decision to deny her motion for a new trial.
On April 2, the 14th Court held Handley’s premises-liability claim was not baseless. Justices, however, also found the trial court properly dismissed Handley’s negligent-activity claim because she did not allege facts that she was injured as a contemporaneous result of some activity negligently performed by a Spec’s agent.
“We sustain in part Handley’s first issue because she met the minimal pleading requirements necessary to overcome Spec’s rule 91a motion to dismiss with respect to her premises-liability claim,” the opinion states. “However, we overrule her first issue in all other respects because the trial court did not err in dismissing her negligent-activity claim under rule 91a standards.
“Accordingly, we affirm in part, and we reverse and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00162-CV
