ACCEPTED 03-15-00295-CV 8063499 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/2/2015 11:09:06 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK

Cause No. 03-15-00295-CV FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/2/2015 11:09:06 PM IN THE COURT OF APPEALS JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Gerald Kostecka, Appellant

VS

Smoky Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ, Appellee

On appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Stuart Whitlow LAW OFFICES OF STUART C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC WHITLOW 1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116 Round Rock, Texas 78664 (737) 346-1839 (512) 255-5938 (fax) [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC NAMES OF ALL PARTIES TO FINAL JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:

Gerald Kostecka

Represented at trial and on appeal by:

Stuart Whitlow LAW OFFICES OF STUART WHITLOW 1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116 Round Rock, Texas 78664 (737)346-1839 (512) 255-5938 (fax) [email protected]

DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:

Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC Represented at trial and on appeal by:

Robert A. House Clark & Trevino 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 920 Austin, Texas 78744

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEXOF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………vii

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 1

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................ 9

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC vi INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Farlow v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital, 284 S.W.3d 903, 911 (Tex. App.-- Fort Worth 2008, Pet.

Denied)…………………………………………………………………5 La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 673 S.W.2d 558, 563 (Tex. 1984). …………………………………………………………………………..5

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC vii STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS Texas Rule of Evidence 801(e)(2)(D)…………………………………………………………….7

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC viii IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Gerald Kostecka, Appellant

VS

Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC, d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ, Appellee

On appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Gerald Kostecka, submits this Reply Brief pursuant to

Rule 38.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in support of his

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC appeal and requests reversal of the trial court=s order granting

Appellee=s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Appellant asks

that this cause be set for submission on oral argument.

ARGUMENT

Appellee’s basic point in their brief seems to be that Appellant

failed to bring forth more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact

with respect to certain elements of Appellant’s cause of action.

Appellee’s Brief at Page 3, 8. Appellee’s first argument is that

“Kostecka puts forth no evidence of the injuries, or other damages, he

claims to have sustained.” Appellee’s Brief at Page 9. In his Affidavit

in support of his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC Judgment (hereinafter “Response”), however, Appellant states that

“[a]s a result of the fall, I sustained substantial injuries to my body (in

particular my left leg and knee) and felt severe pain and suffering. As

a result of the fall, I also have experienced substantial physical

impairment and mental anguish. Such pain and suffering, as well as

the physical impairment resulting from the injuries and mental anguish

continue until this day.” Response, Supplemental Clerk’s Record,

Volume 1, Page 7. Obviously, contrary to Appellee’s assertion,

Appellant brought forth more than a scintilla of evidence on this

element and thus raised a fact issue.

Appellee then argues that the facts set forth in Appellant’s

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC Affidavit supporting the Response are nothing more than repetitions of

the facts in Appellant’s pleadings. To the contrary, Appellee has it

backwards. The facts set forth in Appellant’s Response to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment are taken from Appellant’s Affidavit

attached to the Response. Appellee appears to be saying that

Appellant’s statements regarding the injuries resulting from the fall in

Appellee’s restaurant are “conclusory” in nature. Appellee’s Brief at

Page 10. It is hardly “conclusory” to say that one suffered injuries to

one’s left leg and knee as a result of a fall and that one felt severe

pain and suffering as a result. Again, contrary to Appellees’ assertion,

it is not a conclusory statement to say that when Appellant reached for

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC the salt shaker at the table in Appellees’ restaurant, Appellant’s chair

shot out from under him and he fell to the floor landing on his left

knee. Response, Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7.

This is probative summary judgment evidence. To argue that such

statements are “conclusory” reveals a serious misunderstanding of that

term.

Appellee also argues that Appellant failed to bring forth more than

a scintilla of evidence that the unsafe condition with respect to

Appellant’s restaurant floor and chairs presented an unreasonable risk.

Appellee’s Brief at P. 11, 12. Here again, Appellant presented evidence

of a Smokey Mo’s employee coming up to Appellant right after the fall

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC and stating that the condition of the floor and the nature of the bottom

of the chair legs created a dangerous condition for customers in terms

of the chairs moving out from under customers just like Appellant’s

chair moved out from under him. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume

1, Page 7. This statement in and of itself directly provides far more

than a scintilla of evidence with respect to unreasonable risk of harm.

When this statement is combined with what actually happened to

Appellant and the various general rules of summary judgment with their

generous leaning toward the non-movant, Appellant has even more

obviously met his burden in this regard. Appellant’s Brief at Page 4, 5.

Appellee also argues that Appellant failed to present a scintilla of

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC evidence that Appellee possessed the premises where Appellant was

injured. Appellee’s Brief at Page 12, 13. To the contrary, Appellant

stated in his Affidavit that he and his wife went to a Smokey Mo’s

BBQ restaurant and that that is where he was injured. Supplemental

Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. He stated that he spoke with two

Smokey Mo’s BBQ employees after his fall at the restaurant.

Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Further, they spoke

to him about how Smokey Mo’s was aware of the dangerous condition.

Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Appellant also

talked about how Appellee failed to exercise ordinary care in

addressing the problem with its floor even though it knew about the

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC dangerous condition. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7.

If Appellee could not address the problem, it needed to warn

Appellant about the danger but it did not. Supplemental Clerk’s

Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Clearly, Appellant brought forth far more

than a scintilla of evidence with respect to this element. In addition, the

generous presumptions favoring the non-movant in a no-evidence

summary judgment analysis further make clear that Appellant far more

than met his burden with respect to this element. Appellant’s Brief at

Page 4, 5.

Appellee also apparently argues that the statements of the

Smokey Mo’s BBQ employees set forth in Appellant’s Affidavit were

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC hearsay because they were not acting within the scope of their

authority. Although they were acting within the scope of their authority,

this is not one of the requirements for determining whether statements

of an entity’s employees are hearsay or an admission by an opposing

party. Appellee cites Farlow v. Harris Methodist Forth Worth Hospital,

284 S.W.3d 903, 911 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2008, pet denied) in

support of Appellee’s point in this regard. Farlow, however, does not

stand for this proposition of law. (Appellee also cites La Sara Grain

Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 673 S.W2d 448, 563 (Tex. 1984) in its

discussion of this issue, but it is very difficult to see how this case is

supportive of Appellee’s position.) Appellee correctly states the clear

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC language of Rule 801(e)(2)(D) of the Texas Rules of Evidence (the

governing Rule of Evidence with respect to this issue) to the effect that

a statement made by agents or employees on a matter within the

scope of that relationship and while it existed is not hearsay. Appellee

apparently believes, however, that it has to attempt to add a

requirement to this Rule of Evidence because the employees’

statements are clearly not hearsay under Rule of Evidence

801(e)(2)(D). In fact, the statements made by Appellee’s employees

set forth in Appellant’s Affidavit meet the test of Rule 801(e)(2) (D)

and Appellee’s effort to somehow revise this applicable Rule of

Evidence with a case which is not on point does not make those

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC statements hearsay.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

As Appellant Gerald Kostecka has demonstrated, the trial court

erred in granting Appellee Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a

Smokey Mo’s BBQ’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to

Appellant’s premises liability claim. Appellant properly raised a material

issue of fact with respect to each of the elements of the premises

liability claim brought by Appellant. Accordingly, the summary judgment

issued by the trial court should be reversed and the cause should be

remanded for trial.

WHEREFORE, Appellant Gerald Kostecka asks this Court to rule

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC for Appellant with respect to the issues he presented for appeal, to

reverse the trial court=s granting of Appellee Smokey Mo’s Franchise,

LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ=s motion for no-evidence summary

judgment and to remand the cause to the trial court for further

proceedings. Appellant further respectfully requests that this Court

assess costs of this appeal against Appellee, Tex. R. App. P. 82, and

grant Appellant such other and further relief to which he may be

entitled.

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICESOF STUART WHITLOW 1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116 Round Rock, Texas 78664 (737)346-1837 (512) 255-5938 (fax) [email protected]

By:_____/s/Stuart Whitlow____________ Stuart Whitlow State Bar No. 21378050 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record listed below on this 2nd day of December, 2015.

Robert A. House Clark & Trevino 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 920 Austin, Texas 78744

________/s/ Stuart Whitlow________ Stuart Whitlow

CERTIFICATE OF PAGE NUMBER COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that I have counted the words in the brief and that they total 1175.

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC _______/s/Stuart Whitlow______ Stuart Whitlow

C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC