Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellee’s, Stacy Blair, husband was killed in a motorcycle accident on a road within the limits of the appellant, city of Celina. Blair sued the city and the Texas Department of Transportation on a premises liability theory, alleging both a premise defect and a special defect with the road. Blair pleaded that the city’s sovereign immunity to premises liability claims had been waived in the Texas Torts Claims Act. With a single exception, all of the city’s pleadings related to the theory that the city did not control the roadway on which the accident occurred so as to allow a premises liability claim against the city to proceed. The trial court denied all of the control-related requests for relief filed by the city, including its plea to the jurisdiction. HOLDING:Affirmed. The city brings a single issue in its interlocutory appeal, complaining that the trial court erroneously denied the city’s plea to the jurisdiction. The court fins that Blair’s pleading identified the specific legislative waiver of immunity on which Blair relied � the Texas Torts Claim Act. She identified the type of claim she was making that was within the Act’s statutory waiver � a premises liability claim. She also identified the specific type of premises liability claims she was asserting pursuant to the act’s waiver � a premises defect and a special defect, both relating to the condition of the road where the accident occurred. And finally, the court finds that she pleaded the standard of care that would apply to determine the city’s liability under these provisions of the act. The court therefore concludes that Blair met her burden to allege facts affirmatively demonstrating that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction. But the city argues that it is not a “possessor” of the road where the accident occurred and, as a result, it owed no duty to Blair. If it owed no duty to Blair, the city argues, there has been no waiver of its sovereign immunity, and Blair’s suit may not be maintained. At trial, the city offered evidence in support of its plea: affidavits of employees, who testified broadly that the city did not own, occupy, maintain or control the road in question. However, Blair’s pleadings included the investigating police officer’s report of the accident. The court notes that that document reported the investigation was performed by a city police officer and that the officer issued a citation as a result of the investigation. The court finds that those specific allegations are suffice to raise a fact issue as to the control of the roadway by the city. The city’s evidence did not address, let alone negate, the specific matters raised by the report. Thus, despite the city’s affidavits’ broad assertions of no control, the court finds that a fact issue concerning control remains unaddressed. The court therefore concludes that the city did not conclusively establish its no-duty theory so as to require Blair to come forward with evidence raising a fact issue on her claim. OPINION:FitzGerald, J.; Whittington, FitzGerald and Richter, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.