1, 2, 6 and 7, as there is some evidence of Coastal’s negligence proximately causing Plaintiffs damages. However, the Court concludes that Chapter 95 ... preempts Francis’fs] common[-]law claims against Coastal.... Accordingly, this Court likely erred in submitting any liability question other than one comporting with the statute. The jury answered no to the sole question pertaining to the statute. This Court therefore has a duty and obligation to disregard all other answers made by the jury. Exclusive Remedy In his first issue, Francis contends that the trial court erred by disregarding the jury’s ve o. 14-01-00432-CV, slip op. at 11, — S.W.3d —, —, 2003 WL 21664163 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 17, 2003, motions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc pending; not yet reported) (<HOLDING>); Kelly, 27 S.W.3d at 570-71 (affirming summary
holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims holding that trial courts recognizing some evidence of negligence of premises owner that proximately caused alleged injuries did not give rise to commonlaw duty beyond scope of chapter 95 holding that chapter 95 precludes commonlaw negligence claims holding that when chapter 95 applies it is the plaintiffs exclusive remedy and precludes common law negligence liability holding that noneconomic damages cap mandated by orrevstat  317101 is unconstitutional as applied to commonlaw negligence claims