when it attacked “all claims”); see also Wortham, 179 S.W.3d at 201-02 & n.16 (affirming summary judgment on gross negligence when the motion referred to “negligence”; refusing to separately address the appellants’ arguments regarding gross negligence because a finding of ordinary negligence is a prerequisite to a finding of gross negligence; overruling appellants’ issue contending that gross negligence claim was not addressed in the motion). Norman does not otherwise challenge the granting of the summary judgment on negligence or gross negligence. Norman’s third issue is overruled. III. Conclusion Having overruled Norman’s remaining issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 . Compare Nowzaradan v. Ryans, 347 S.W.3d 734, 739 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (<HOLDING>), with Cobb v. Dall. Fort Worth Med. Ctr.—Grand
holding that expert proof was not required for an asserted claim of ordinary negligence holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action holding that dawson proscribes gross negligence holding that cjulpable negligence is negligence of a gross and flagrant character which evinces a reckless disregard for the safety of others