SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe

GAMMAGE, Justice, joined by HIGHTOWER and SPECTOR, Justices,

dissenting.

Because the majority misuses this Court’s precedents, the summary judgment record, and even Doe’s own pleadings against her on the question of when a “duty” is raised, I dissent.

I

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for the defendant. SmithKline as mov-ant had the burden to negate as a matter of law the facts supporting Doe’s cause of action. Wilcox v. St. Mary’s University, 531 S.W.2d 589, 592-93 (Tex.1975). It is not enough that Doe failed to prove or present evidence of elements of her case. Smith-Kline had to…