X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: This is a wrongful-death action. Mary Sanchez appeals from a summary judgment predicated on the sovereign immunity of the appellee, Matagorda County. By a single point of error, appellant generally contends the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment because the County waived its immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act when it added planks to the bridge and created a special defect which allegedly caused the death of her husband, Edward Sanchez. HOLDING: Affirmed. The appellant argues that the county was negligent in the implementation of its decision to add wood plank runners to the roadway portion of the bridge but not to extend them the entire width of the bridge. However, county commissioner George Deshotels testified that the decision not to lay the planks to the edge of the bridge was part of the bridge design and was based partially on the increased cost that would have been incurred. This decision of a governing body to choose one design over another is the essence of the exercise of discretion. This is not a situation where a governmental employee negligently performed the task he was ordered to do, so as to possibly create governmental liability. Therefore, taking as true all evidence favorable to appellant and indulging every reasonable inference in her favor, the court concludes the addition of the longitudinal planks to the bridge, a significant redesign and repair of the bridge after 1970, was a discretionary act of a county government for which its sovereign immunity has not been waived. The county has conclusively established its affirmative defense of immunity. The appellant contends the addition of the planks created either a special defect or a premises defect. However, while the act waives immunity from suit under certain circumstances, including some premises and special defect claims, the waiver does not extend to damages arising from governmental discretionary conduct. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code �101.056(2). Under �101.056, the county retained its immunity for the bridge design. The design of the bridge involved policy-level decisions and, as such, was the result of the county’s discretionary judgment, thus, a discretionary act. Therefore, neither appellant’s special defect theory nor her premises defect theory can bypass the county’s immunity for discretionary roadway design under �101.056 of the act. OPINION: Rodriguez, J.; Valdez, C.J., Rodriguez and Dorsey, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.