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:In September 1999, Marisa Dimas, the appellant, began her undergraduate studies at Sam Houston State University. Around 11 p.m. on Sept. 2, as appellant was leaving the campus library, an unknown assailant dragged her beneath a dark stairwell and sexually assaulted her at knife-point near the Frels Office Building. Appellant sued appellees (Texas State University System, Sam Houston State University, the Board of Regents of Sam Houston State University, Bobby K. Marks, in his official capacity as president of Sam Houston State University, and the Sam Houston State University Police Department), alleging negligence, premises defect, breach of warranty, and violation of 42 U.S.C. �1983. In her negligence claims, appellant alleged that there was inadequate security on campus because university employees had “negligently implemented the campus’ [sic] formulated safety policies.” She also alleged that they were negligent “in their use or misuse of the light sources in the area where [appellant] was attacked; [and] of the security call-boxes on campus.” In her premises liability claim, appellant alleged that her injuries “arose from a condition of the real property on campus,” and that the university employees “failed to use ordinary care to keep the campus safe, properly lit, and free from criminal trespassers.” She further alleged that appellees were negligent in “failing to inspect the property for dangerous conditions . . . or to warn [appellant] of any such defect.” Appellant pleaded the following allegedly negligent acts and omissions: 1. maintaining the premises with visual obstructions behind which intruders could hide; 2. failing to provide adequate lighting; 3. failing to provide security fences; 4. failing to provide functional emergency call boxes; 5. failing to provide adequate on-site premises security; 6. failing to warn of the risk of harm; 7. failing to provide a safe residential environment for appellant. Appellees subsequently filed a joint plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, arguing that appellant had failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity. Appellees contended that appellant’s claims arose out of discretionary “design decisions” and “policy-formulating decisions,” for which immunity is not waived. Appellees also argued that the state is immune from complaints about inadequate security and the method of providing security. In her response to appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction, appellant elaborated that the time clocks controlling the light sources in the area in which she was attacked were defective and that the campus had experienced eight campus-wide power outages in the year preceding her enrollment. According to appellant, school officials knew of these defects, although she did not. Additionally, appellant asserted that the University replaced the time clock that controlled the lighting near the Frels Office Building just four months after the attack. Appellant stated that “the deficient lighting in and around the area of the Frels Office Building created a premises defect, that the security on campus was inadequate, and . . . that her injuries arose out of the defective time clock at the Frels Office Building, which she contends failed to function on September 2, 1999.” On Nov. 1, 2002, at the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction, the parties essentially reiterated their earlier arguments. Appellant also requested an opportunity to re-plead. Appellees attempted to introduce an affidavit of the campus’s electrical foreman, Richard Sledge. The trial court granted appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction and joint motion to dismiss on May 23, 2005. HOLDING:Affirmed. Appellant has failed to establish a waiver of immunity based on premises liability because the alleged defect did not proximately cause her injuries. Rather, the actions of her attacker, not the allegedly defective lights, were the proximate cause. The allegedly defective lights did not cause appellant’s injuries; rather, the assailant’s acts proximately caused her injuries. Assuming that the timers malfunctioned, the mere involvement of this property is not sufficient to establish a waiver of immunity under Texas Tort Claims Act �101.021(2). Although malfunctioning light timers may have caused the area near the Frels Office Building to be dark, thus furnishing the condition that made the attack possible, this condition does not establish the requisite causal nexus. The appellant argues that sovereign immunity is waived because her pleadings allege and substantiate that the university negligently implemented a security-related safety policy. The negligent implementation of policy theory does not itself waive sovereign immunity. Perez v. City of Dallas, 180 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). The appellant argues that sovereign immunity is waived because her pleadings alleged negligence in the University’s undertaking of maintenance activities, specifically the improper maintenance of campus security lights and timers. Maintenance activities undertaken at the operational level do not constitute discretionary functions for which immunity is waived. City of Forth Worth v. Gay, 977 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). Appellant’s pleadings demonstrate the absence of proximate cause; therefore, the court did not err in failing to grant appellant the opportunity to replead. OPINION:Adele Hedges, C.J.; Hedges, C.J.,Yates and Guzman, J.J.

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.