FACTS OF THE CASE
Well Solutions, Inc. v. Ross Stafford, 4th Court of Appeals - SA, (No. 04-00-00001-CV, September 29, 2000) involved Well Solutions, Inc.'s appeal of a summary judgment granted against it in favor of Ross Stafford, Jr. d/b/a Superior Trailer Sales.
The underlying lawsuit arises out of an accident that occurred on January 20, 1997. Roland Benavidez was driving a truck and towing a trailer. He was involved in a one car accident in which his brother, Raul, was killed. The survivors and the Estate of Raul Benavidez filed suit against Dawson Production Services, Inc., Well Solutions, Inc. and others in Duval County. After that litigation was resolved Roland Benavidez and his wife sued Well Solutions, Inc. for injuries arising out of the same accident. Well Solutions, Inc. filed a third-party claim against Ross Stafford, Jr. d/b/a Superior Trailer Sales alleging that company manufactured the trailer involved in the accident. Superior Trailer Sales moved for summary judgment on the ground that it did not manufacture the trailer and supported its motion with affidavits.
Well Solutions, Inc. filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment including deposition excerpts and an affidavit from the underlying case involving survivors and Estate of Raul Benavidez. It also included uncertified copies of records of the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Department of Public Transportation. Superior Trailer Sales objected to the evidence alleging that it was inadmissible hearsay and incompetent summary judgment evidence. The objections were not ruled upon by the trial court. The trial court granted Superior Trailers' motion for summary judgment.
NEED TO OBTAIN A RULING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
In reversing the trial court's granting of the motion for summary judgment the Court found that Well Solutions, Inc.'s summary judgment evidence raised a material issue of fact concerning whether Superior Trailers manufactured the trailer. At issue is whether or not Superior Trailer waived its objections to the form of the summary judgment evidence by failing to obtain a ruling by the Court on its objections.
Prior to September 1, 1997, Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) stated that a complaint is preserved for appellate review only if the record establishes the complaint was made known to the trial court in a timely manner and the trial court ruled on the complaint. Effective September 1, 1997, the Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (a)(2)(A) changed the rule to permit a trial court's ruling to be either express or implicit.
The Court of Appeals rejected Superior Trailer's argument that the trial court implicitly granted its objections because it granted its motion for summary judgment.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBJECTIONS TO FORM AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTANCES
Superior Trailer also argued that its objections went to the substance of Well Solutions summary judgment proof and therefore it may raise its objections for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeals noted the difference between objections to the form of the summary judgment evidence, which must be raised before the trial court or are waived, and defects in the substance of the proof which are not waived despite the lack of an objection. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence that was objected to, including excerpts from the deposition of a witness in the prior lawsuit, are objections to the form of the summary judgment evidence, not to its substance.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Superior Trailer waived its objections to the form of Wells Solutions, Inc.'s summary judgment evidence which controverted its motion for summary judgment, since Superior Trailer failed to obtain rulings on its objections.