Diane V. Wade v. David's Landscaping; and David's Landscaping, Inc. Appeal from 419th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion by chief justice rose)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00617-CV Diane V. Wade, Appellant v. David’s Landscaping; and David’s Landscaping, Inc., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-13-004070, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Diane V. Wade appeals from a no-evidence summary judgment granted to David’s Landscaping and David’s Landscaping, Inc., (collectively, David’s Landscaping). Wade filed a negligence claim against David’s Landscaping to recover damages for injuries she sustained when she tripped over debris she alleges it left on the sidewalk outside her rental home. We will affirm the district court’s summary judgment. In her sole issue, Wade maintains that the affidavit she submitted in response to David’s Landscaping’s motion for no-evidence summary judgment raises genuine issues of material fact regarding the elements of her negligence claim. But the district court sustained David’s Landscaping’s objection to Wade’s affidavit in its order granting summary judgment, and Wade has not challenged the merits of that ruling. Consequently, we may not consider the affidavit in reviewing the summary judgment.1 Because Wade offered no other evidence to support her negligence claim, summary judgment was proper.2 The summary judgment is affirmed. __________________________________________ Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Bourland Affirmed Filed: August 19, 2016 1 See Little v. Needham, 236 S.W.3d 328, 331 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (refusing to consider evidence excluded by trial court where appellant had not challenged merits of trial court’s ruling excluding such evidence (citing Inglish v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 928 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied)). 2 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.