Katherine Mika v. Express Jet Airlines Inc ( 2006 )

NO. 07-05-0146-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 4, 2006
______________________________
KATHERINE MIKA,
Appellant
v.
EXPRESS JET AIRLINES, INC.,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 280TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;
NO. 2003-36,486; HON. TONY LINDSAY, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Katherine Mika (Mika) appeals from a final judgment denying her recovery against
Express Jet Airlines, Inc. (Express). Her sole issue concerns the trial court’s decision to
grant Express a partial summary judgment on the issue of negligent hiring, training, and
supervision. We overrule the issue and affirm the judgment.
Express raised two grounds, via its amended motion for summary judgment,
attacking Mika’s claim of negligent hiring, training, and supervision. One dealt with the
federal preemption doctrine while the other dealt with the absence of any evidence
illustrating that Express negligently hired, trained, or supervised the employee in question.1
Moreover, in granting the motion, the trial court did not specify upon which ground it relied.
Consequently, Mika had the burden on appeal to illustrate why none of the grounds
asserted by Express entitled the litigant to summary judgment. Lewis v. Adams, 979
S.W.2d 831, 833 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). This she failed to do for
no issue was raised on appeal encompassing the no-evidence ground.
Mika having failed to attack both grounds asserted in support of summary judgment
upon her claim of negligent hiring, training, and supervision, we overrule her issue and
affirm the judgment. See id. (holding that the appellate court must affirm the summary
judgment when the appellant fails to negate each ground upon which the judgment may
have been granted).
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
1
W e note and reject Mika’s contention that Express failed to raise a no-evidence ground in its motion
for summ ary judgment. Appearing in that m otio n is the follo wing passage: “Because of this, the Plaintiff’s
claim s are p reem pted by Federa l Law. In addition, there is no evidence in this case of essential elements of
Pla intiff’s claims and therefore, your Defendant is entitled to a sum m ary judgm ent. . . .” (Emph asis added ).
Elsewhere in the same m otion appears the statement that: “Plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim is likewise, [sic]
governed by Defendant’s No Evidence M otion for Sum m ary Judgm ent.” And, after describing the “necessa ry
elem ents of such a c ause,” Exp ress stated that evidence s atisfying those elem ents “is not present in this
cas e.” From those elements, one cannot but conclude that Express included a no-ev idence g roun d in its
motion.
2