Opinion
14-22-00417-CV
04-02-2024
FRANK BURFORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS AND ESTATE OF CAROLYN BURFORD, DECEASED; WESLEY BURFORD, INDIVIDUALLY; AND LESLIE SCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants v. HOWMET AEROSPACE, INC., F/K/A ARCONIC, INC., F/K/A ALCOA, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-70076-ASB
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
In the trial court appellee/defendant Howmet Aerospace, Inc., f/k/a Arconic, Inc., f/k/a Alcoa, Inc. ("Alcoa"), filed a no-evidence summary-judgment motion asserting that there is no evidence of substantial-factor causation, an essential element in each of the claims alleged by appellants/plaintiffs Frank Burford, Individually and as Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Carolyn Burford, Deceased; Wesley Burford, Individually; and Leslie Schell, Individually (the "Burford Parties"). Alcoa also asserted the following other grounds: (1) there is no evidence of gross negligence; (2) there is no evidence that Alcoa acted intentionally toward Carolyn Burford; (3) there is no evidence of any of the essential elements necessary to establish liability for civil conspiracy; (4) there is no evidence of any of the essential elements necessary to establish liability for aiding and abetting; and (5) as to the Burford Parties' negligence per se theory, there is no evidence Carolyn Burford was within the class of persons that a statute was designed to protect, that Carolyn's injury was the type that the statute was designed to prevent, or that Alcoa violated such a statute (collectively, the "Other Grounds"). The trial court expressly did not grant summary judgment based on any of the Other Grounds.
On original submission Alcoa did not present any of the Other Grounds to this court by a cross-point or cross-issue, nor did Alcoa brief any argument that this court should affirm the summary judgment in whole or in part based on one of these grounds. Thus, on original submission, we did not consider any of the Other Grounds as a potential basis for affirming the trial court's judgment. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex. 1996); FinServ Cas. Corp. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 523 S.W.3d 129, 150 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). We concluded that the trial court erred in granting Alcoa's no-evidence motion on the causation ground because the Burford Parties provided the trial court with more than a scintilla of evidence constituting direct, scientifically reliable proof of causation. See Burford v. Howmet Aerospace, Inc., No. 14-22-00417-CV, 2024 WL 790285, at *10 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 27, 2024, no pet. h.). We reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. See id.
Alcoa has filed a motion for rehearing in which Alcoa does not challenge the reasoning in this court's opinion on original submission. Instead, Alcoa asserts in a single issue on rehearing that "[t]he trial court erred in refusing to grant summary judgment on [the Burford Parties'] claims for gross negligence, assault, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and negligence per se." In this motion Alcoa argues that the trial court should have granted summary judgment on the Other Grounds.
This court, in the interest of judicial economy, may consider other summary-judgment grounds not ruled on by the trial court and preserved for review by Alcoa. See Cates, 927 S.W.2d at 626. This court is not required to consider the other grounds, and this court may determine that it is not in the interest of judicial economy for this court to consider these grounds. See id; Hamilton v. Maynard, No. 01-19-00925-CV, 2020 WL 6787514, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] Nov. 19, 2020, no pet.). By granting summary judgment on the entire case based on its conclusion that there is no evidence of substantial-factor causation, the trial court did not need to address the Other Grounds because even if the trial court granted summary judgment on each of the Other Grounds, that ruling would not dispose of the Burford Parties' claims based on negligence or strict products liability. Under the applicable legal standard, we conclude that without regard to the merits of any of the Other Grounds, it is not in the interest of judicial economy for this court to address any of the Other Grounds in this appeal. See Hamilton, 2020 WL 6787514, at *4. Therefore we deny Alcoa's motion for rehearing.