5 S.W.3d 654, *; 1999 Tex. LEXIS 107, **;
42 Tex. Sup. J. 1159
2 of 59 DOCUMENTS
MELLON MORTGAGE COMPANY, PETITIONER v. ANGELA N. HOLDER, F/
K/A ANGELA N. HAMILTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F FOR NICHOLAS C.
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
5 S.W.3d 654; 1999 Tex. LEXIS 107; 42 Tex. Sup. J. 1159
January 12, 1999, Argued
September 9, 1999, Delivered
ON PETITION FOR
REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
Court of appeals' judgment reversed
and judgment rendered that Holder take nothing.
FOR PETITIONER: Mr. Robert M. Schick,
Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX. Ms. Catherine B. Smith,
Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX. Ms. Kathleen A.
Gallagher, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX.
FOR RESPONDENT: Mr. Kenneth M. Morris, Morris &
Campbell, Houston, TX. Mr. David A. Furlow, Morris &
Campbell, Mr. John S. Brannon, Morris & Campbell,
Houston, TX. Mr. Gene L. Locke, Mayor Day Caldwell
Keeton, Houston, TX. Ms. Andrea Chan, Assistant City
Attorney, Houston, TX. Ms. Laura Anne, Assistant City
Attorney, Houston, TX. Ms. Elizabeth M. Revere,
Assistant City Attorney, Houston, TX.
JUSTICE ABBOTT delivered a plurality
opinion, in which JUSTICE HECHT and JUSTICE
OWEN join. JUSTICE ENOCH filed a concurring
opinion. JUSTICE BAKER filed a concurring opinion.
JUSTICE O'NEILL filed a dissenting opinion, in which
HANKINSON join. JUSTICE GONZALES did not
participate in the decision.
While driving late one night in the
downtown Houston area, Angela Holder was stopped for
an alleged traffic violation by Calvin Potter, an on-duty
Houston police officer. Potter took Holder's insurance
and identification cards and told her to follow his squad
car. Holder followed Potter several blocks to a parking
garage owned by Mellon Mortgage Company. Once
inside the garage, Potter sexually assaulted Holder in his
Holder sued Mellon and the City of Houston but did
not sue her attacker. The trial court granted summary
judgment for Mellon and the City on all of Holder's
claims. The court of appeals affirmed the summary
judgment in favor of the [**2]
City on the basis of
sovereign immunity. With regard to Holder's claims
against Mellon, the court of appeals affirmed the
summary judgment on Holder's negligence per se claim,
but reversed on the negligence, gross negligence, and
loss of consortium
claims. On petition for review to this
Court, Mellon claims, among other things, that it owed
no legal duty to Holder. Because we hold that it was not