Maria Macias-Garcia v. Moody Gardens, Inc.

Macias-Garcia v. Moody Gardens · Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas · June 2, 2026 · No. 01-24-00706-CV

Summary

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed summary judgment in favor of Moody Gardens, Inc. in a premises-liability negligence action arising from Maria Macias-Garcia’s fall at an aquarium exhibit. The court held that the simulated sandbar condition was open and obvious, eliminating Moody Gardens’ duty to warn, and also noted that Macias-Garcia failed to challenge that independent summary-judgment ground on appeal.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Writing for the Court
Kristin Guiney; Chief Justice Adams; Justice Guerra; Justice Guiney
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Decision date
June 2, 2026
Docket number
01-24-00706-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of the premises owner in an invitee's negligence and premises-liability action.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. The reviewing court takes as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, indulges every reasonable inference in the nonmovant's favor, and resolves doubts in the nonmovant's favor. When the trial court does not specify the grounds for summary judgment, the judgment must be affirmed if any asserted ground is meritorious. A defendant seeking matter-of-law summary judgment must disprove at least one essential element of the plaintiff's claim or conclusively establish each element of an affirmative defense.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion; precedential status is identified as published in the provided metadata.
Parties
Maria Macias-Garcia v. Moody Gardens, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

premises liabilitysummary judgmentduty of carestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

tortspremises liabilitycivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in granting Moody Gardens summary judgment on Macias-Garcia's negligence claim.
  2. Whether the simulated sandbar was an open and obvious condition such that Moody Gardens owed Macias-Garcia no duty to warn.
  3. Whether Macias-Garcia's failure to challenge the open-and-obvious ground independently required affirmance of the summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. The simulated sandbar was an open and obvious condition because its contrasting color and texture, elevation change, and rope barrier made it readily perceivable to a reasonably prudent invitee. Moody Gardens therefore had no duty as a matter of law to warn Macias-Garcia about that condition.
  2. An appellant challenging summary judgment must challenge every independent ground that could support the judgment. If the appellant fails to challenge an independent ground, the appellate court must affirm the judgment.

Key quotations

Combined, these concepts present the general rule regarding a premises owner’s duty to an invitee, which is “to make safe or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the [premises] []owner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not.” (9-10)
A danger is open and obvious if a reasonably prudent invitee would have known and appreciated the nature and extent of the danger under similar circumstances. (13)
Because, on appeal, Macias-Garcia failed to challenge this independent ground supporting the trial court’s ruling, we must uphold the trial court’s summary-judgment ruling. (14-15)

Factual background

Macias-Garcia, an invitee at Moody Gardens' aquarium in Galveston, fell while leaving a simulated sandbar at a mangrove touch-tank exhibit on March 12, 2022. The sandbar was a differently colored and textured elevated surface, separated from surrounding flooring by a rope barrier, and was used by guests to reach into the touch tank. Moody Gardens presented evidence that three signs reading "CAUTION WATCH YOUR STEP" and depicting a falling person were present near the area. Macias-Garcia alleged that an uneven, wet, and dimly lit condition caused her fall, although she did not know precisely what caused it and did not challenge on appeal the independent ground that the condition was open and obvious.

Procedural history

Macias-Garcia sued Moody Gardens after falling on a simulated sandbar at an aquarium exhibit and alleged that a dangerous premises condition caused her injuries. Moody Gardens moved for summary judgment, arguing that the condition was open and obvious or known to Macias-Garcia and that warnings discharged any duty owed. The trial court granted the motion and ordered that Macias-Garcia take nothing. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…