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:Susanne Morales was serving a jail sentence in the Tarrant County Jail’s work release program. On March 28, 2001, she reported to the Cold Springs minimum-security facility to obtain her work assignment for the day. While in a room containing a row of stadium seating, she bent down to pick up a piece of garbage from the floor. As she did, she put her hand on one of the seats, and the row of chairs fell on her. She allegedly sustained injuries as a result. On Feb. 27, 2003, Morales sued the county, asserting negligence and premises defect claims. The county generally denied Morales’ causes of action and filed a plea to the jurisdiction. In its plea to the jurisdiction, the county asserted that it was immune from suit under Article 42.20 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which, in connection with a community service or work program, grants immunity to governmental entities for acts, or a failure to act, performed in an official capacity without conscious indifference to the safety of others. Morales then amended her pleadings to allege that her claims fell within an exception to the immunity provision of Article 42.20 because the county acted with conscious indifference. The county did not amend its plea to the jurisdiction to challenge Morales’ allegation that it acted with conscious indifference. The trial court denied the county’s plea to the jurisdiction. The county appealed. The county contended that 1. Morales did not plead facts sufficient to bring her suit within the “conscious indifference” exception to the county’s immunity under Article 42.20 because the pleadings are conclusory and, even if Morales’ pleadings are taken as true, as a matter of law they did not allege conscious indifference; and 2. There was no evidence that the county created an unreasonable risk of harm to Morales. HOLDING:Affirmed. To establish conscious indifference, the court stated that it is only necessary to show that the actor proceeded with knowledge that the harm was a “highly probable” consequence of the act or failure to act. It is not necessary, the court stated, to show that the actor actually intended to cause harm. Accepting Morales’ pleadings as true and construing them liberally in her favor, the court held that Morales pleaded sufficient jurisdictional facts to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. Morales, the court stated, alleged that the county knew that the stadium seats that fell on her were not properly fastened to the floor but took no steps to fix the problem or to warn Morales of the danger. Those allegations, the court stated, were sufficient to demonstrate that the county performed an act or omission involving an extreme risk to others, that the county had actual awareness of the risk and that the county proceeded with knowledge that the harm was a highly probable consequence of its alleged failure to act. Therefore, the court held that Morales pleaded sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring her suit within the “conscious indifference” exception to the county’s immunity from suit under Article 42.20, and the trial court properly denied the county’s plea to the jurisdiction. The county further asserted that there was no evidence that the stadium seats constituted an unreasonable risk of harm to Morales. The county’s plea to the jurisdiction, however, did not challenge the existence of facts supporting Morales’ allegation that the stadium seating posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Morales. Consequently, the court stated that Morales had no burden to present evidence to the trial court proving such a risk existed. Instead, the court found that the trial court was required to accept as true Morales’ allegation that the stadium seats presented an unreasonable risk of harm to her. OPINION:Cayce, C.J.; Cayce, C.J.; Holman and Walker, 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.