In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00050-CV
______________________________
BODY DYNAMICS, INC., D/B/A
BDI MARKETING, INC., Appellant
V.
NITTANY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th Judicial District Court
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 04-C-159-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Body Dynamics, Inc., d/b/a BDI Marketing, Inc., the sole appellant in this case, has filed a motion seeking to dismiss its appeal, representing to this Court that the parties have reached a full and final settlement. In such a case, no real controversy exists, and in the absence of a controversy, the appeal is moot.
We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: September 18, 2006
Date Decided: September 19, 2006
ability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (2) the actor must have actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex. 1998). Neither of the fact patterns alleged by Horton constituted gross negligence. Again, if Froelich ordered the actions, Horton may have had a claim for assault or conversion, but not gross negligence. And, if Froelich was merely aware of the actions between the inmates, there was certainly no claim for gross negligence. Under either scenario alleged in Horton's petition, there was no basis in law for his claims of negligence or gross negligence. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Horton's petition.
We affirm the judgment.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: August 26, 2002
Date Decided: August 27, 2002
Do Not Publish