Olga Mata Individually as Representative of the Estate of Elpidio Mata and a/n/f of Rocio Mata, Ruby Mata, Rudy Mata and Paloma C. Mata, Minor Children and Raquel Mata Aguilar and Rosemary Mata and Ro

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 1st District Court of Appeals » 2011 » Olga Mata Individually as Representative of the Estate of Elpidio Mata and a/n/f of Rocio Mata, Ruby Mata, Rudy Mata and Paloma C. Mata, Minor Children and Raquel Mata Aguilar and Rosemary Mata and Ro

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-09-01097-CV

Case Date: 03/30/2011

Plaintiff: Olga Mata Individually as Representative of the Estate of Elpidio Mata and a/n/f of Rocio Mata, Ruby

Defendant: Energy Absorption Systems LLC a/k/a Energy A

Preview:Opinion issued March 31, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
------------------------ NO. 01-09-01097-CV ------------------------ OLGA MATA, INDIVIDUALLY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELPIDIO MATA AND A/N/F OF ROCIO MATA, RUBY MATA, RUDY MATA, AND PALOMA C. MATA, MINOR CHILDREN, AND RAQUEL MATA AQUILAR, ROSEMARY MATA, AND ROSSY CAMPA, Appellants V. ENERGY ABSORPTION SYSTEMS, LLC A/K/A ENERGY ABSORPTION SYSTEMS, INC., QUIXOTE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, INC., KELLER KRASH KUSHIONS, INC. D/B/A CONTRACTORS BARRICADE SERVICE, WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., AND ODUM SERVICES OF HOUSTON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412nd District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 38047

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal concerns a highway collision between a tractor-trailer and a crash cushion. Appellants, Olga Mata, individually as representative of the estate of Elpidio Mata and as next friend of Rocio Mata, Ruby Mata, Rudy Mata, and Paloma C. Mata, minor children, and Raquel Mata Aquilar, Rosemary Mata, and Rossy Campa (collectively, the Matas), appeal summary judgments granted in favor of appellees, Energy Absorption Systems, LLC, also known as Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. (Energy Absorption), Quixote Transportation Safety, Inc. (Quixote), and Keller Krash Kushions, Inc., doing business as Contractors Barricade Service (Keller Krash), Williams Brothers Construction Co. (Williams Brothers), and Odum Services of Houston (Odum Services). In their first issue, the Matas contend that the trial court erred by granting Energy Absorption, Quixote, and Keller Krash`s motion for no-evidence summary judgment. In their second issue, the Matas contend that the trial court erred by granting Williams Brothers` motion for no-evidence summary judgment and by granting Odum Services` motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. Concluding that the trial court properly granted the motions for noevidence summary judgment, we affirm.

2

Background In 2006, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) contracted with Williams Brothers to complete a highway construction project on US-59 in Sugar Land, Texas. Under the terms of the contract, Williams Brothers agreed to narrow the left lane of the highway. This was to be accomplished by painting a new centerline1 to the right of the existing centerline; afterward, the preexisting centerline was to be removed. Williams Brothers also agreed to install a concrete barrier with a crash cushion in front of it. The barrier and cushion were to be placed to the left of the new centerline. The contract terms specified that the crash cushion would be a REACT 350 Narrow crash attenuation system. Energy Absorption, which is a subsidiary of Quixote,2 manufactured the REACT 350 Narrow. The REACT 350 Narrow consists of a row of high-density plastic barrels sitting in a metal frame, the front of which is bolted to the ground. Along each side of the barrels run two or four rows of metal cables, which are affixed to bolts on the front of the frame. The main purpose of the cables is to provide redirective capacity for side impacts.
1

A centerline is a solid-yellow road surface marking that runs along the leftmost lane of traffic, indicating that traffic on the other side moves in the opposite direction. See Griffin v. State, 54 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2001, pet. ref`d) (citing TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN.

Download 88946.pdf