Finding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a premises liability claim arising from a slip-and-fall, the Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court order dismissing the claim under Rule 91a.
Cynthia Handley v. Spec’s Family Partners, Ltd. (No. 14-25-00162-CV; April 2, 2026) arose from a slip-and-fall outside a Spec’s store. Plaintiff sued Spec’s and the premises owner asserting premises liability and negligent activity. Spec’s filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, noting that Plaintiff failed to file a response to Spec’s motion. Plaintiff complained of lack of notice, but the trial court denied her motion for new trial. After more procedural activity, Plaintiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Jewell, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. As to Plaintiff’s premises liability claim, Spec’s argued that Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action because “it did not possess or control the premises” where Plaintiff fell, an essential element of a premises liability theory. Plaintiff’s petition, however, alleged that Spec’s and the other defendant “were the owner and/or possessor” of the premises. Those allegations, taken as true, “suffice[d] to plead that Spec’s controlled or possessed the premises” (citations omitted). Spec’s “misapprehend[ed] the applicable standards in the rule 91a context” because it challenged the truth of Plaintiff’s allegation, not that Plaintiff had “sufficiently pleaded facts to state a claim.” Spec’s could certainly move for summary judgment on the fact issue of control or possession, but Rule 91a is not the place for that discussion. The court reversed the trial court dismissal on Rule 91a.
Plaintiff’s negligent activity theory had a different outcome. “When a person claims an injury was caused by a premises owner’s or occupier’s negligence,” the court observed, “that claim sounds in either premises defect or negligent activity, but not both” (citation omitted). Plaintiff didn’t allege any facts “that she was injured as a contemporaneous result of some activity negligently performed by a Spec’s agent.” That claim, consequently, was properly dismissed by the trial court. The court remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
