duty ends inquiry in Texas

2025See Thapar v. Zezulka, 994 S.W.2d 635, 638-40 (Tex. 1999) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on negligence claim because 33 “we have never recognized the only underlying duty upon which such a cause of action could be based”); Obialo v. N. Healthcare Land Ventures, Ltd., No. 01-17- 00317-CV, 2018 WL 3233575 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming traditional and no-evidence summary judgment against plaintiff on his negligence claim based on nonexistence of alleged duty, noting that “[t]he nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whethe

2025See Thapar v. Zezulka, 994 S.W.2d 635, 638-40 (Tex. 1999) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on negligence claim because 33 “we have never recognized the only underlying duty upon which such a cause of action could be based”); Obialo v. N. Healthcare Land Ventures, Ltd., No. 01-17- 00317-CV, 2018 WL 3233575 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming traditional and no-evidence summary judgment against plaintiff on his negligence claim based on nonexistence of alleged duty, noting that “[t]he nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whethe

2025See Thapar v. Zezulka, 994 S.W.2d 635, 638-40 (Tex. 1999) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on negligence claim because 33 “we have never recognized the only underlying duty upon which such a cause of action could be based”); Obialo v. N. Healthcare Land Ventures, Ltd., No. 01-17- 00317-CV, 2018 WL 3233575 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming traditional and no-evidence summary judgment against plaintiff on his negligence claim based on nonexistence of alleged duty, noting that “[t]he nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whethe

2025See Thapar v. Zezulka, 994 S.W.2d 635, 638-40 (Tex. 1999) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on negligence claim because 33 “we have never recognized the only underlying duty upon which such a cause of action could be based”); Obialo v. N. Healthcare Land Ventures, Ltd., No. 01-17- 00317-CV, 2018 WL 3233575 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming traditional and no-evidence summary judgment against plaintiff on his negligence claim based on nonexistence of alleged duty, noting that “[t]he nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whethe

2007However, the threshold issue in any negligence case is whether the alleged tortfeasor owes a legal duty to the injured party, see Hancock v. City of San Antonio, 800 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, writ denied), and ‘‘[t]he nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whether negligence liability may be imposed.” VanHom v. Chambers, 970 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. 1998).

2007However, t he threshold issue in any negligence case is whether the alleged tortfeasor owes a legal duty to the injured party, see Hancock v. City of San Antonio , 800 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1990, writ denied), and "[t[he nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whether negligence liability may be imposed." VanHorn v. Chambers , 970 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. 1998).

2025Nat’l Convenience Stores Inc. v. Matherne, 987 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

2023“The non-existence of a duty ends the inquiry.” Kennamer v. Estate of Noblitt, 332 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).

2022Conclusion Because Grant failed to present more than a scintilla of evidence that Arrow was his common law employer with respect to the claims at issue, and because Arrow’s status as Grant’s alleged employer was the basis for the duty element of Grant’s negligence and negligence per se claims, Grant has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these claims sufficient to defeat Arrow’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. “[T]he ‘nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whether negligence liability may be imposed.’” Little v. Delta Steel, Inc., 409 S.W.3d 704, 717 (Tex. App.—

2014Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Texas Contract Carpet, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 515, 529 (Tex. App.––Austin 2009, no pet.) (“In the absence of a duty, there can be no negligence.”) (quoting Southwestern Elec.

2011Generally, there is “no duty to take action to prevent harm to others absent certain special relationships or circumstances.” Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 837 (Tex. 2000).