Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Efren Salazar filed suit for injuries he alleges he received in a motorcycle accident on the Southwest Freeway high occupancy vehicle lane in Houston. At the time of the collision, one of the defendants, Trena Jernigan, was traveling behind Salazar in the HOV lane. Salazar alleges that a Metro bus merged into the HOV lane in front of a vehicle traveling directly in front of Salazar. Salazar and the vehicle in front of him came to a stop. Jernigan, however, failed to control her vehicle and struck Salazar’s motorcycle from behind. The impact threw Salazar off of his motorcycle and into traffic. After the collision, a Metro police officer investigated the accident and completed an accident report. His report noted: 1. the identity of the parties involved in the collision; 2. that Salazar had been injured in the collision and his property had been damaged; and 3. that the parties involved in the collision faulted the Metro bus as contributing to Salazar’s injuries and property damage. The police officer, however, did not interview the Metro bus operator, cite the bus driver as the cause of the accident, nor did he list the driver as an accident witness. HOLDING:Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, the Texas Supreme Court held that “the failure to give notice of a claim as required by 101.101 does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction over an action on the claim.” 140 S.W.3d 351, 362 (Tex. 2004). In Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons, the court held that “actual notice under 101.101 requires that a governmental unit have knowledge of the information it is entitled to be given under 101.101(a) and a subjective awareness that its fault produced or contributed to the claimed injury.” 140 S.W.3d 338, 348 (Tex. 2004). Relying on its opinion in Loutzenhiser, the Texas Supreme Court held that, because a lack of notice is not jurisdictional, it cannot be made the basis of a plea to the jurisdiction in the trial court. As a result, a court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction challenging notice under the Texas Tort Claims Act, and should dismiss such an appeal. The court holds that it has no jurisdiction over this appeal. Lack of proper notice under the Texas Tort Claims Act does not defeat a trial court’s jurisdiction, and thus the trial court properly denied Metro’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, the denial of a plea to the trial court’s jurisdiction based on lack of proper notice under the Texas Tort Claims Act may not serve as a basis for an interlocutory appeal. OPINION:Bland, J.; Taft, Jennings and Bland, 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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.