DALLAS - The Fifth Court of Appeals recently affirmed a summary judgment win in favor of OVP Hospitality in a lawsuit alleging a man was severely injured by hot water after slipping on a shampoo bottle in the shower and losing consciousness.
Court records show Arthur Armijo filed suit against OVP in 2019 for injuries suffered at a Comfort Suites in Plano. Armijo slipped on a shampoo bottle in the shower, fell, hit his head, and lost consciousness.
While unconscious, hot water from the shower ran over his body, causing third-degree burns along the left side of his body. Armijo suffered septic shock and underwent extensive medical treatment, including skin graft surgery.
In his suit, Armijo asserted negligence claims and premises liability over the installation and maintenance of the hot water heater, and OVP’s failure to warn of the extreme temperature of the hot water in the shower.
Court records show OVP filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment one month before the close of discovery, arguing there was no evidence a condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
Armijo responded that OVP’s actions denied him the opportunity to conduct adequate discovery and also sought a 120-day continuance of trial.
According to the Fifth Court’s March 10 opinion, after a hearing the trial court orally granted Armijo’s motion for a trial continuance but denied his request to extend discovery. The trial court then advised the parties that the scheduling order would be amended only if the parties agreed, which they did not.
Court records show the trial court granted OVP’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment, leading Armijo to appeal.
The Fifth Court affirmed the trial court’s no-evidence summary judgment in favor of OVP, finding that the record does not support Armijo’s argument that an adequate time for discovery had not passed.
“Given a trial court’s broad discretion in matters of discovery, we cannot conclude that the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and without regard to any guiding principles by finding that an adequate time for discovery had passed and granting OVP’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment,” the opinion states.
Case No. 05-20-00727-CV