Background
Bryanna Mallet alleged that she slipped on a wet floor at a Fresh Choice Cafe restaurant on March 22, 2023, fell backward onto a stone floor, and injured her head, back, arm, and other areas. She sought hospital treatment that day and later received chiropractic, outpatient, and pain-management care for continuing symptoms.
Fresh Choice moved for no-evidence summary judgment solely on causation. The trial court granted the motion and entered a take-nothing judgment after Fresh Choice nonsuited its counterclaim. Mallet appealed, relying principally on authenticated medical records documenting her complaints, diagnoses, treatment, and treating providers’ causation opinions.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that Mallet presented more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause. The records indicated that she slipped on a wet floor at Fresh Choice, experienced immediate symptoms, promptly sought treatment, and received diagnoses and opinions from treating providers connecting her injuries to the March 22 fall. Viewed favorably to Mallet, that evidence supplied a logically traceable connection between the wet-floor incident and her claimed injuries.
The court also held that the evidence supported a reasonable inference that slipping, falling, and suffering bodily injury were foreseeable consequences of a wet restaurant floor. Although Fresh Choice objected that deficient expert disclosures rendered medical-record opinions inadmissible, the trial court never ruled on the objection, so the records remained part of the summary-judgment evidence. The appellate court reversed the final judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Contemporaneous medical records, ongoing complaints, diagnoses, and treating-provider opinions can collectively exceed the more-than-a-scintilla threshold on causation.
- An evidentiary objection does not remove evidence from the summary-judgment record unless the trial court rules on it.
- The court decided only whether Mallet raised a fact issue on causation, not whether Fresh Choice was liable or whether Mallet ultimately proved her injuries and damages.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the relatively limited burden a plaintiff faces when responding to a properly filed no-evidence summary-judgment motion: the plaintiff need not conclusively establish causation but must identify competent evidence from which reasonable jurors could differ.
It also underscores the importance of obtaining express rulings on summary-judgment evidentiary objections. Without a ruling, challenged evidence remains in the record and must be considered on appeal.