Norma Torres v. City of Corpus Christi ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-14-00506-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
4/22/2015 3:39:34 PM
DORIAN RAMIREZ
CLERK
NO. 13-14-00506-CV
FILED IN
IN THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
4/22/2015 3:39:34 PM
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
Clerk
Norma Torres
Appellant
vs.
City of Corpus Christi
Appellee
On appeal from Cause No. 2011-CCV-62438-4
County Court at Law Number 4 of Nueces County, Texas
Honorable James Klager, Presiding Judge
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY
Thomas J. Henry
State Bar No. 09484210
George A. DeVera
State Bar No. 24048431
521 Starr Street
Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401
Telephone: (361) 985-0600
Fax: (361) 985-0601
Email: gadevera-svc@tjhlaw.com
Counsel for AppellantNorma Torres
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a list of all parties to the trial court’s order appealed from,
and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel:
1. Appellant-Plaintiff is Norma Torres.
2. Trial and appellate counsel for Appellate-Defendant City of Corpus
Christi is Corpus Christi City Attorney, Mark DeKoch, P.O. Box 9277,
1201 Leopard Street, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ......................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................ vii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...........................................x
ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................................................................. xi
Was sovereign immunity properly waived pursuant to § 101.021 of the
TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT for the personal injuries proximately caused by
the negligence of Officer Walker? .................................................................... xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .....................................................................2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................3
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................3
II. NORMA PROPERLY PLED A STATUTORY WAIVER OF
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.................................................................................6
III. THE EMERGENCY SITUATION EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY
BECAUSE OFFICER WALKER WAS NOT RESPONDING TO AN
EMERGENCY. ....................................................................................................8
IV. ASSUMING THE EMERGENCY SITUATION EXCEPTION
APPLIES, OFFICER WALKER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
LAW AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE TO EMERGENCY
ACTION……......................................................................................................11
ii
A. OFFICER WALKER ADMITTED CAUSING THE COLLISION IN HIS
DEPOSITION. ....................................................................................................15
B. OFFICER WALKER RECEIVED A CITATION FOR VIOLATING THE
TRANSPORTATION CODE AND PLED GUILTY IN OPEN COURT. .....................16
C. OFFICER WALKER’S SPEED ENDANGERED THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF
NORMA TORRES...............................................................................................17
D. AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD FOUND OFFICER WALKER AT FAULT
FOR CAUSING THE COLLISION. .......................................................................20
E. OFFICER WALKER VIOLATED DEPARTMENTAL ORDINANCES. ................21
V. ASSUMING THE EMERGENCY SITUATION EXCEPTION
APPLIES AND NO LAWS OR ORDINANCES GOVERN HIS
CONDUCT, OFFICER WALKER’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES
CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE
SAFETY OF OTHERS......................................................................................22
CONCLUSION/PRAYER .................................................................................25
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000) ................. 5, 6, 16
Cantu v. Perales, 97 S.W.3d 861, 862-63 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2003, no
pet.).............................................................................................................................4
City of Amarillo v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426, 431 (Tex. 1998) ...............................28
City of Dallas v. Porter, 2002 WL 1773008 at *3-4 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2002, no
pet.)...........................................................................................................................16
City of Elsa v. Gonzales, 325 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Tex. 2010). ....................................6
City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 656-57 (Tex. 1994) ...................12
City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667. 672 (Tex. 2006).......................28
City of San Antonio v. Higle, 685 S.W.2d 682, 686-87 (Tex. App. – San Antonio
1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). .............................................................................................26
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003). ...............8
Gwynn v. Tobin, 2003 WL 21554331 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003, no pet.) .............11
Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2003).......................................4
Kelly v. Am. Interstate Ins. Co., No. 14-07-00083-CV, 2008 WL 5085138, at *2
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 25, 2008, pet. filed) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) ........................................................................................3
iv
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnydale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998) ..........................3
Meijia v. City of San Antonio, 759 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Tex. App. – San Antonio
1988, no writ) ...........................................................................................................11
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012)........
......................................................................................................................... vii, 6, 7
Nueces County v. Ferguson, 97 S.W.3d 205, 213 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi
2003, no pet.) .............................................................................................................4
Rivas v. City of Houston, 17 S.W.3d 23, 27 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.]
2000), supp. on reh’g 19 S.W.3d 901 (2000, pet. denied). ......................................12
Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 222 (Tex.
2002) ..........................................................................................................................3
Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993) ....4
Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004).
.......................................................................................................................... passim
Texas Dep’t of Public Safety v. Bonilla, 2014 WL 2451176 at *4-6 (Tex. App. – El
Paso 2014, pet. filed)................................................................................................21
Texas Dep’t of Transportation v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999).................7
University of Tex. v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Tex. 2010) ................................7
Wadewitz v. Montgomery, 951 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tex. 1997); ...............................11
v
Statutes
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.021(1). .............................................................7
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.021...................................................................7
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.055(2). .......................................................8, 14
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.002(b)...................................................................24
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.003 .......................................................................24
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.005 (Vernon 2009)...............................................24
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.001 .......................................................................24
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.001(3) (Vernon 2009) ..........................................19
vi
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant Norma Torres (“Norma”) was severely injured in a collision with
Officer Robert Walker (“Officer Walker”) on July 18, 2011, when he lost control
of his police vehicle while attempting to assist in a high-speed chase. As a result
of her injuries, Norma requires an L4-5laminectomy and discectomy with surgical
stabilization and fusion. It is undisputed that Officer Walker was acting in the
course and scope of his employment with Appellee the City of Corpus Christi
(“City”).
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that the trial Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction because immunity was not waived under the TEXAS
TORT CLAIMS ACT (“Act”) because Officer Walker was responding to an
emergency call and properly complied with the laws and ordinances applicable to
emergency action. Alternatively, the City argued that Officer Walker did not act
with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for Norma’s safety.
The trial court erroneously held that Norma failed to raise a fact issue
establishing subject matter jurisdiction despite the fact that the Texas Supreme
Court has held that disputed facts must be resolved at trial by a jury. 1 Moreover, if
1
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012); Texas Dep’t of
Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004).
vii
this Court properly takes all evidence favorable to Norma as true and resolves all
reasonable inferences and doubts in her favor, then the only proper holding is to
allow a jury to determine whether Officer Walkers actions were taken in proper
compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable to emergency actions or
whether his actions were consciously indifferent to or in reckless disregard of
Norma’s safety. 2 By this brief, Norma respectfully requests that the Court reverse
the trial court’s ruling that immunity was not properly waived under the TEXAS
TORT CLAIMS ACT.
Appellant filed suit in County Court at Law Number 4 of Nueces County,
Texas, on November 23, 2011, alleging that the City was liable to Norma pursuant
to § 101.021 of the CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE because Officer Walker
committed wrongful acts or omissions while acting in the course and scope of his
employment with the City while operating a motor-driven vehicle and would be
personally liable to Norma under Texas Law. (1 CR 5-12). On June 18, 2013, the
City filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over this case. (1 CR 18-23). In response to the City’s plea,
Norma filed an Amended Petition on July 19, 2013 and a Response with evidence
on July 22, 2013. (1 CR 114-122, 1 CR 124-141).
2
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28.
viii
The first hearing on the Plea was held on July 22, 2013. (1 RR 1-16). At the
request of the trial court judge, both parties filed additional briefings with evidence
for the court on their positions (1 CR 328-333, 1 CR 424-439). On June 16, 2014,
the Court granted the City’s plea and rendered a take nothing judgment against
Norma. Subsequently, Norma filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for
New Trial on July 15, 2014. (1 CR 441-449). The Court heard Norma’s Motion
for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial on August 27, 2014 (2 RR 1-35).
The trial court denied Norma’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New
Trial on August 27, 2014. (1 CR 530).
ix
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument would give the Court a more complete understanding of the
facts and legal issues presented in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.1(c). The
facts in the instant case require additional explanation in order to fully understand
the chronology of events. Therefore, the decisional process would be significantly
aided by having counsel present to explain why the facts do or do not support
Appellant’s contentions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.1(d). Accordingly, Appellee
respectfully requests the Court grant oral argument.
x
ISSUE PRESENTED
There is a single issue to be resolved by the Court in this appeal:
Was sovereign immunity properly waived pursuant to § 101.021 of the TEXAS
TORT CLAIMS ACT for the personal injuries proximately caused by the
negligence of Officer Walker?
xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 18, 2011, Officer Walker, an employee of the Corpus Christi Police
Department, lost control of his police car while traveling westbound on the 2500
block of Laredo in excess of the posted speed limit and collided with Norma
Torres in the eastbound lane of traffic. As a result of the collision, Officer Walker
was cited for unsafe change from a direct course. (1 CR 54-56). Additionally, he
was cited by the Police Department for violating § 4.04(B)(3) of the General Rules
Manual and disciplined by his supervising officer. (1 CR 221-223, 272-277).
Norma sustained serious personal injuries as a result of the collision which require
a laminectomy and discectomy with surgical stabilization and fusion at L4-5 to
address. (1 CR 108).
1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The trial court’s ruling in its August 27, 2014 order should be reversed
because the evidence presented by Norma creates a jurisdictional fact issue that a
jury must resolve as to whether the immunity has properly been waived under the
TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT. Subject Matter Jurisdiction over this case exists for four
reasons.
First, Norma properly pled a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity in her
live pleading before this Court.
Second, the Emergency Situation Exception (“Exception”) to the ACT does
not apply because the City failed to prove that Officer Walker was responding to
an emergency.
Third, Officer Walker admitted that he failed to act as a reasonably prudent
officer while assisting in apprehending a stolen vehicle.
Fourth, assuming the exception applies, whether Officer Walker’s conduct
during the collision was reckless is a fact question for the jury.
The trial court’s August 27, 2014 order should be REVERSED.
2
ARGUMENT
At issue is whether or not the “Emergency Exception” to the TEXAS TORT
CLAIMS ACT was applicable to Officer Walker’s actions on July 18, 2011, and,
assuming that the exception applies, did Walker’s conduct constitute a reckless
disregard for the safety of all persons. The undisputed evidence creates a disputed
fact issue that Officer Walker failed to act as a reasonably prudent officer at the
time of the collision and that his actions constitute a finding of reckless conduct.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction is a question of law and
reviewed de novo. 3 A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that seeks dismissal
of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 4 When a plea to the jurisdiction
challenges the pleadings, the court determines if the pleader has alleged facts
that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause rather
3
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 (emphasis added); see Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid
Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 222 (Tex. 2002); Mayhew v. Town of Sunnydale, 964 S.W.2d 922,
928 (Tex. 1998); Kelly v. Am. Interstate Ins. Co., No. 14-07-00083-CV, 2008 WL 5085138, at *2
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 25, 2008, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (citing Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.
2004)).
4
Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2003).
3
than looking at the claim’s merits.5 Since the plaintiff bears the burden to allege
facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear a case, the
courts construe the pleadings liberally and in the plaintiff’s favor and should
look to the pleader’s intent. 6 The Court assumes the truth of the jurisdictional
facts alleged in the pleadings unless the defendant presents evidence to negative
their existence.7
However, if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of
jurisdictional facts, the court will consider relevant evidence submitted by the
parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.8 The purpose
of the plea is not to force a plaintiff to preview her case on the merits, but rather, to
establish why the merits of the claims should never be reached. 9 Although the
issues raised by a plea to the jurisdiction often require hearing evidence, a plea
to the jurisdiction does not authorize an inquiry so far into the substance of the
claims presented that the plaintiff is required to put on her case simply to
5
Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993); Cantu v.
Perales, 97 S.W.3d 861, 862-63 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (emphasis added).
6
Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d at 446; Nueces County v. Ferguson,
97 S.W.3d 205, 213 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (emphasis added).
7
Texas Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004).
8
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000) (emphasis added).
9
Id. at 554.
4
establish jurisdiction. 10 Whether a determination of subject matter jurisdiction can
be made in a preliminary hearing or should await a fuller development of the
merits of the case must be left to the trial court’s discretion. 11
When jurisdiction involves the merits of the case, the trial court must
review the evidence to determine whether there is a fact issue.12 This standard
mirrors a summary judgment procedure under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). 13 That is,
the defendant must first present evidence to show that the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction; if the defendant does so, then the plaintiff must then
show there is a disputed material fact on the jurisdictional issue.14 If the facts are
disputed, the court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction and the issue must be
resolved by the finder-of-fact at trial; however, if the evidence is undisputed or if
there is no fact question on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court will rule on the
plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law. 15 When reviewing a plea to the
jurisdiction in which the pleading requirement is met and evidence has been
10
Id. (emphasis added).
11
Id.
12
Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004); see Mission
Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012); City of Elsa v. Gonzales,
325 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Tex. 2010).
13
Mission Consol., 372 S.W.3d at 635; Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228.
14
Id. (emphasis added).
15
Mission Consol., 372 S.W.3d at 635; University of Tex. v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Tex.
2010) (emphasis added).
5
submitted to support the plea that implicates the merits of the case, all evidence
favorable to the nonmovant is taken as true and all reasonably inferences and
doubts are resolved in favor of the nonmovant.16 If the evidence submitted
creates a fact issue as to jurisdiction, then it is for the fact-finder to decide. 17
II. NORMA PROPERLY PLED A STATUTORY WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY
Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter
jurisdiction unless the state specifically consents to suit.18 In a suit against a
governmental unit, the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the court’s
jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity. 19 The TEXAS TORT CLAIMS
ACT provides a limited waiver of governmental immunity if certain conditions are
met. The ACT states:
A governmental unit in the state is liable for:
(1) Property damage, personal injury, and death proximately
caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an
employee acting within his scope of employment if:
(A) The property damage, personal injury, or death
arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven
vehicle or motor-driven equipment; and
16
Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004) (emphasis
added).
17
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28 (emphasis added).
18
Texas Dep’t of Transportation v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999).
19
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003).
6
(B) The employee would be personally liable to the
claimant according to Texas law; and
(2) Personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of
tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit, were
it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas
law.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.021. Thus, a governmental unit may be held
liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of its employees under the ACT if they are
acting within the scope of their employment and when the personal injuries or
property damage arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or
equipment if the same employee could be held liable to the claimant under Texas
law. 20
Norma’s Amended Petition specifically alleges that Officer Walker was in
the course and scope of his employment and that he was negligent in the operation
of his police vehicle at that time of the collision. (1 CR 146-154). Moreover, both
Officer Walker and his supervisor, Lieutenant J.C. Hooper (“Lt. Hooper”) testified
that Officer Walker is in the course and scope of his employment with the City at
the time the collision occurred. (1 CR 179, 1 CR 249). Additionally, it is
undisputed that the collision arose from Officer Walker’s operation or use of a
motor driven-vehicle. (1 CR 179).
20
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.021(1).
7
III. THE EMERGENCY SITUATION EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY
BECAUSE OFFICER WALKER WAS NOT RESPONDING TO AN
EMERGENCY.
The ACT contains exclusions and exceptions to liability that, although a
proper waiver of statutory immunity has properly been pled, nonetheless excuses
the governmental entity’s conduct. Specifically, the ACT excludes claims arising:
(2) from the action of an employee while responding to an
emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation if the
action is in compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable
to emergency action, or in the absence of such law or
ordinance, if the action is not taken with conscious indifference
or reckless disregard for the safety of others.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.055(2). The City’s plea alleges that Officer
Walker’s conduct is excusable because he was responding to an emergency call.
The evidence, when viewed favorably to Norma, raises a fact issue as to whether
Officer Walker was responding to an emergency.
The existence of an emergency situation is a matter of fact that
ordinarily should be determined by the jury. 21 The City asserts that since
Walker was operating with lights and sirens at the time the collision occurred that
he was automatically responding to an emergency situation. Simply because
21
Meijia v. City of San Antonio, 759 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1988, no writ)
(emphasis added)
8
Walker decided to activate his lights and sirens while travelling toward the
intersection where the collision occurred does not automatically mean that he was
“responding to an emergency.” In order to succeed on a plea to the jurisdiction,
there can be no issue of material fact regarding the existence of any
emergency and whether the City complied with relevant laws. 22
In determining whether an emergency situation arises, Courts have
employed a reasonably prudent officer standard and examined the need to
which an officer responds and the risks of the officer’s course of action based
on the officer’s perception of the facts at the time of the event. 23 Need is
determined by factors such as the seriousness of the situation to which the official
responds and what alternative courses of action, if any, are available, to achieve a
comparable result.24 Risk refers to the countervailing public safety concerns; the
nature and severity of harm that the official’s actions could cause (including injury
to bystanders as well as the possibility that an accident would prevent the officials
from reaching the scene of the emergency), the likelihood that any harm would
occur, and whether any risk of harm would be clear to a reasonably prudent
22
Id. (emphasis added).
23
Gwynn v. Tobin, 2003 WL 21554331 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003, no pet.) quoting Wadewitz v.
Montgomery, 951 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tex. 1997); see also Rivas v. City of Houston, 17 S.W.3d 23,
27 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000), supp. on reh’g 19 S.W.3d 901 (2000, pet. denied).
24
Id.
9
official.25 To counter an emergency vehicle driver’s proof that his actions were
necessary, the injured bystander must prove that no reasonable person in the
driver’s position could have thought the facts justified his acts. 26
In his deposition, Officer Walker testified that, in light of the results of his
actions, he failed to act as a reasonably prudent officer in course of action based on
his perception of the events at the time they occurred:
Q Okay. Do you agree that if you were driving your
vehicle a little slower that day, that you could
have prevented yourself from losing control and
striking my client's vehicle?
A I believe if I was driving in a safe and prudent
manner that the collision would not have
occurred.
Q Okay. Do you believe that you could have
responded to the call in a safe and prudent manner
and still been able to arrive at the location that you
were trying to reach?
A I -- I don't know.
Q (By Mr. De Vera) Okay. Looking back at
everything, do you think that -- that the best thing
for you to have done at the time was to proceed in
a safe and prudent manner so that you could
safely and efficiently get to the intersection to lay
down the strips, the spike strips?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Knowing what you know today, would you
do things differently?
A Yes, sir.
25
Id.
26
Id. quoting City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 656-57 (Tex. 1994) (emphasis
added).
10
Q Okay. How would you have done things
differently?
A I -- I either wouldn't have tried to get to that
intersection or I would have went further to a
different location further off so I'd have more
time to set up the spike strips.
* * *
Q Do you believe that as a result of violating the
rules manual you were not acting as a reasonably
prudent police officer should have acted on the
day of the collision?
A I don't believe I was driving at a reasonable and
prudent manner.
(1 CR 184, 186) (emphasis added). Thus, Officer Walker’s own testimony creates
a fact issue as to whether he was responding to an emergency at the time of the
collision.
IV. ASSUMING THE EMERGENCY SITUATION EXCEPTION APPLIES,
OFFICER WALKER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND
ORDINANCES APPLICABLE TO EMERGENCY ACTION.
The City asserts that sovereign immunity is not waived under the ACT
because Officer Walker was responding to an emergency call at the time of the
collision and that his actions did not violate any laws or ordinances applicable to
an emergency situation. Even if the exception applies, Norma’s alleges sufficient
jurisdictional facts in her Amended Petition that actively demonstrate that Officer
Walker failed to act in compliance with the applicable laws or ordinances
11
applicable to an emergency situation at the time of the collision. Moreover, the
undisputed evidence supports these allegations.
The Texas Supreme Court, in Bland Independent School District v. Blue,
held that a plea to the jurisdiction cannot be used to have require a plaintiff to
prove her entire case in order to establish jurisdiction—so long as a plaintiff
properly pleads that the conduct was reckless, listed the purportedly reckless
conduct and specified the laws applicable, granting a plea to the jurisdiction is
improper:
Whether Porter is required to prove in response to
the City’s plea to the jurisdiction that Dethloff violated
any of the statutes pleaded by Porter is similar to the
issue of whether a plaintiff must prove the amount of
damages alleged in the petition in order to establish
jurisdiction in a trial court. As the Texas Supreme Court
noted in Bland, absent a specific allegation that the
amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of
wrongfully obtaining jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s
allegation of damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit
suffices to show the amount in controversy and establish
jurisdiction to the trial court. A plea to the jurisdiction
cannot be used to require the plaintiff to try her entire
case in order to show entitlement to damages in excess
of the trial court’s jurisdictional limit.
Similarly, absent an allegation by the City that
Porter fraudulently alleged violations of sections
546.005 and 546.001(3) by Dethloff in order to obtain
jurisdiction in the trial court, Porter cannot be
required to prove her entire case to demonstrate the
12
statutory violations by Dethloff in order to establish
jurisdiction.
* * *
However, Porter pleaded Dethloff was reckless
in his actions, listed the purportedly reckless conduct,
and specified the laws applicable to an emergency
response with which she alleges Dethloff failed to
comply. Requiring Porter to carry her ultimate
burden to prove Dethloff’s conduct met either prong
of the pleaded allegations in response to the City’s
plea to the jurisdiction would impermissibly require
Porter to prove her case on the merits simply to
establish jurisdiction. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34
S.W.3d at 554. Although the City’s entitlement to
immunity pursuant to section 101.055 might be
established after the case is further developed, Porter is
not required to prove her case in order to defeat the plea
to the jurisdiction. Id. 27
SECTION 101.055(2) of the ACT specifically excludes claims arising from the
action of an employee while responding to an emergency call or reacting to an
emergency situation if the action is in compliance with the laws and ordinances
applicable to emergency action, or in the absence of such a law or ordinance, if the
action is not taken with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety
of others. 28 Like Porter, Norma pled in her Amended Petition that if Officer
Walker was responding to an emergency call that his behavior was not in
compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable to an emergency action or, in
27
City of Dallas v. Porter, 2002 WL 1773008 at *3-4 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2002, no pet.) citing
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000) (emphasis added).
28
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 101.055(2).
13
the absence of such law or ordinance, with conscious indifference or reckless
disregard for the safety of others. (1 CR 115-119).
The undisputed evidence establishes that Officer Walker was in the course
and scope of his employment with the City at the time of the collision. (1 CR 179,
1 CR 249). Additionally, Lt. Hopper identified that the applicable laws and
ordinances that govern Walker’s actions:
Q Okay. Fair enough. The uniform division manual,
that's the operating manual for the division that
you work in and the division that Officer Walker
was working in at the time the collision happened.
Is that correct?
A I think that really applies to the general rules
manual. This manual is in place, but I think the
general rules manual is more our bible. This
document, yes, it does exist and it did exist for us
at the time.
Q Okay. Other than the general rules manual and
this uniform division manual, would there be any
other employee manuals or handbooks that would
govern the manner in which Officer Walker was
to operate his vehicle?
A There might be elements in the Texas traffic code
that would apply, but other than that, no, sir. I
can't think of any others.
Q And when you're talking about the Texas traffic
code, Lieutenant, just to make sure I'm clear,
you're talking about the codified statutes that go
over the what the proper rules for operating
vehicles for anyone on the Texas roadway?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that fair?
A Yes, sir.
14
Q Okay. And are you talking about specifically the
sections of the traffic code that deal with
emergency vehicles or are you just speaking more
generally about the rules that every vehicle in the
roadway has to follow?
A Both.
(1 CR 232). The evidence shows that Walker violated not only the specific
portions of the TRANSPORTATION CODE that govern the operation of authorized
emergency vehicles, but that he also violated internal rules and regulations of the
Police Department and the City of Corpus Christi. (1 CR 287-327).
A. OFFICER WALKER ADMITTED CAUSING THE COLLISION IN HIS
DEPOSITION.
The Emergency Exception to the ACT does not apply because Officer
Walker violated laws and ordinances applicable to an emergency situation and
expressly admitted liability for causing the collision in his deposition:
Q Okay. And so let me just ask you formally for the
record, are you assuming responsibility for
causing this collision?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Is there anything that my client
Ms. Torres did to cause the collision?
A No, sir.
Q Is there anything that my client Ms. Torres didn't
do to avoid the collision?
A No, sir.
15
1 (CR 175). Officer Walker’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a fact
issue regarding the emergency exception.
B. OFFICER WALKER RECEIVED A CITATION FOR VIOLATING THE
TRANSPORTATION CODE AND PLED GUILTY IN OPEN COURT.
The evidence also shows that Officer Walker violated the specific portions
of the TRANSPORTATION CODE that govern the operation of authorized emergency
vehicles. Specifically, Walker specifically admitted that he received a citation
from the investigating officer for unsafe change from a direct course and that he
pled guilty to the charge:
Q Okay. And according to -- according to the report
for this particular wreck, it says that you received -
- you were charged with unsafe change from a
direct course. Is that fair?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And -- and since you were charged as a --
an officer and not as an off duty civilian, is there a
different process by which officers resolve these
kind of citations or are they resolved as if they
were – as if you were in a civilian vehicle?
A They're resolved the same way.
Q Okay. And so how did you resolve this particular
citation?
A I went to the court and pled guilty and requested
the deferred adjudication.
16
(1 CR 165 1 CR 278-280) (emphasis added). The fact that Officer Walker was
cited for violating the TRANSPORTATION CODE is sufficient to raise a fact issue
regarding the emergency exception.
C. OFFICER WALKER’S SPEED ENDANGERED THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF
NORMA TORRES.
In addition to receiving a citation for unsafe change from a direct course, the
investigating officer’s report shows that the collision occurred in Ms. Torres’s lane
(in the direction of oncoming traffic). (1 CR 278-280). The fact that Officer
Walker’s speed was so excessive that it caused him to lose control of his vehicle
and strike another oncoming vehicle raises a fact issue about whether Officer
Walker complied with the laws applicable to emergency situations.
The El Paso Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence was presented to
raise a fact issue concerning whether an officer in pursuit of a suspect violated the
laws applicable to an emergency situation.29 In Bonilla, as in this case, the Court
of Appeals found that the applicable statues pertaining to the officer’s actions were
§§ 546.001 and 546.005 of the TRANSPORTATION CODE. The officer is question
ran a red light while pursuing a suspect and the Court held that there was sufficient
29
Texas Dep’t of Public Safety v. Bonilla, 2014 WL 2451176 at *4-6 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2014,
pet. filed).
17
evidence to raise a fact issue as to whether the officer slowed before entering the
intersection where the collision occurred.
In this case, SECTION 546.001(3) allows an operator of an authorized
emergency vehicle to exceed the maximum speed limit as long as the operator does
not endanger life or property. 30 Officer Walker testified that his excessive speed in
conjunction with a soft brake caused him to lose control of his vehicle:
Q Got it. Okay. And so you're coming around the S
curve and are you -- are you intending when it gets
to the S curve to continue straight on Agnes
toward --
A Continue westbound.
Q Right. Continue westbound?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And so when you come around the curve,
you're hitting your brakes because of your speed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Is it fair to say that -- that the reason that
you had to hit your brakes coming around that
curve is because you were operating your vehicle
over the posted speed limit because of the
emergency?
A Yes, sir.
* * *
Q Okay. So basically you're -- you're going
through the S curve, you're going to intend on
proceeding westbound towards the intersection of
Agnes and Port, you hit your brake to reduce
your speed, because of the speed you're going
30
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 546.001(3) (Vernon 2009) (emphasis added).
18
around the curve. The brake is soft and so -- as a
result of that your speed does not decrease and
that causes you to lose control of the vehicle. Is
that fair?
A Yeah.
(1 CR 170-171). Norma Torres testified that the impact occurred in her lane and
caused property damage to her vehicle and bruising to her body:
Q Okay. Tell me in your own words as much detail
as you can recall how the accident happened.
A I just know that he did the curve and he was
going really fast and I did a turn to the right and
we still end up hitting.
Q Okay. How would you describe the impact?
A It was awful. It was awful. I was -- it was awful.
It was his car was completely out of control.
Q Was there property damage to your vehicle?
A Yes, sir.
* * *
Q Okay. Did you have any cuts?
A I don't -- just bruises.
Q Okay. Where were you bruised?
A In my leg and I don't remember where else. I just
remember my leg.
Q Okay. Which leg?
A I think it was the right. 31
The fact that Officer Walker operated his vehicle at such an excessive speed as to
endanger both the life AND property of Norma Torres is sufficient to raise a fact
issue regarding the emergency exception.
31
Deposition of Norma Torres, page:line 22:17 – 28:18.
19
D. AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD FOUND OFFICER WALKER AT FAULT
FOR CAUSING THE COLLISION.
Additionally, Officer Walker’s actions were reviewed by the City Vehicle
Accident Review Board (VARB) and the collision was found to be a preventable
event and the Board assessed points against his operating record. (1 CR 281-291).
As a result of these findings, the VARB required Officer Walker to attend
counseling sessions and a remedial driver training program. Id.
Officer Walker testified that he had the ability to appeal the Board’s decision
but elected not to because he accepted responsibility for causing the wreck:
Q Okay. And -- and you know that the accident
review board allows an appeal from the decision of
the board, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And did you -- did you elect to appeal?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. Is the reason that you elected not to appeal
because you accepted responsibility that the
collision was your fault?
A Yes, sir.
(1 CR 182). The fact that the City found the collision to be preventable an
assessed a penalty to Officer Walker is sufficient to raise a fact issue regarding the
emergency exception.
20
E. OFFICER WALKER VIOLATED DEPARTMENTAL ORDINANCES.
As a result of the collision, Officer Walker was cited at the scene for
violating Rule 4.04(B)(3) of the Police Department’s General Rules Manual for
failing to operate his vehicle in a safe and prudent manner. (1 CR 287-291).
Officer Walker admitted being internally disciplined by the Police Department for
failing to operate his vehicle in a safe and prudent manner:
Q And can you read for the ladies and gentlemen of
the jury what violation 4.04 B3 is?
A Yes, sir. "Employees shall operate police vehicles
in a safe and prudent manner at all times and will
be held accountable for the carelessness or
negligence. Improper use or operation of a police
vehicle may contribute grounds for disciplinary
action."
Q Okay. And do you admit that the way that you
operated the vehicle on July 18th of 2011 was in
violation of 4.04 B3?
A Yes, sir.
* * *
Q What disciplinary action was instituted against
you as a result of this violation?
A I was written a letter of counsel.
(1 CR 182). The San Antonio Court of Appeals, in City of San Antonio v. Higle,
held that acting in violation of prescribed governmental procedures would prevent
21
the City from raising an immunity defense. 32 Lt. Hopper testified that the City’s
General Rules Manual would govern Officer Walker’s conduct at the time of the
collision. (1 CR 232). The fact that Officer Walker was cited for violating
departmental procedures alone is sufficient to raise a fact issue regarding the
emergency exception.
V. ASSUMING THE EMERGENCY SITUATION EXCEPTION APPLIES
AND NO LAWS OR ORDINANCES GOVERN HIS CONDUCT,
OFFICER WALKER’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES CONSCIOUS
INDIFFERENCE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY
OF OTHERS.
The City asserts immunity has not been waived because no pleadings
establish that the City acted with conscious disregard and no evidence exists that
Officer Walker acted with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the
safety of others. CHAPTER 546 of the TRANSPORTATION CODE governs the
operation of authorized emergency vehicles. It condones conduct by operators of
authorized emergency vehicles which would normally violate the CODE when
responding to an emergency call or pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the
law. 33 Additionally, the statute requires the use of audio or visual signals when
32
City of San Antonio v. Higle, 685 S.W.2d 682, 686-87 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1984, writ
ref’d n.r.e.) (emphasis added).
33
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 546.001; TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. 546.002(b) (Vernon 2009).
22
proceeding past a red light or stop sign, after slowing for safe operation. 34 There
is no specific statute which authorizes an officer to exceed the maximum speed
to such a degree that they lose control of their vehicle and strike oncoming
traffic.35 Despite condoning normally illegal conduct, the TRANSPORTATION CODE
requires that the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle responding to an
emergency operate the vehicle with appropriate regard for the safety of all persons
and without reckless disregard for the safety of others.36
The Texas Supreme Court requires a finding of reckless conduct before
liability may be premised upon the conduct of an operator of an emergency vehicle
in an emergency situation. 37 To recover damages resulting from the emergency
operation of an emergency vehicle, a plaintiff must show that the operator has
committed an act that the operator knew or should have known posed a high
degree of risk of serious injury. 38 There is no requirement that the officer
specifically testify that he knew the relevant facts but did not care about the
34
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.003 (Vernon 2009) (emphasis added).
35
While TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.001(3) does allow an authorized emergency vehicle to
exceed a maximum speed limit, it must not endanger life or property. In this case, Walker
testified that his excessive speed caused him to lose control of his vehicle and strike Ms. Torres
in her lane of travel.
36
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 546.005 (Vernon 2009).
37
City of Amarillo v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426, 431 (Tex. 1998) (emphasis added).
38
Id. at 430 (emphasis added).
23
result. 39 The evidence shows that Walker’s actions at the time of the collision
violated CHAPTER 546 of the TRANSPORTATION CODE:
Q Hold on. Let me just finish my question. That
collision itself was one hundred percent
completely and totally your fault?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Now, even though you're operating your
vehicle with lights and sirens, you acknowledge
that the internal regulations of the department as
well as the laws of the state of Texas require that
you operate your vehicle with due regard to other
people on the roadway, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Based on what happened in the collision and how
the collision occurred, do you believe that you
operated your vehicle with due care and due
regard on the day of the collision?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. And that's because you lost control of the
vehicle coming around the curve, correct?
A Yes, sir.
(1 CR 175). The evidence shows that Officer Walker failed to operate his vehicle
with due regard for the safety of Norma Torres and is sufficient to raise a fact issue
that his conduct violated § 546.005 of the TRANSPORTATION CODE. Accordingly,
the trial court’s ruling on the City’s plea should be REVERSED.
39
City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667. 672 (Tex. 2006).
24
CONCLUSION/PRAYER
Norma Torres has properly pled a waiver of sovereign immunity under the
TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT. Moreover, the evidence presented, when view in the
light most favorable to Norma, establishes fact issues as to whether the emergency
exception applies. Further, the evidence raises fact issues as to whether Officer
Walker properly complied with the laws and ordinances applicable to emergency
actions when he operated his vehicle at an excessive speed and lost control coming
around a curb causing him to collide with oncoming traffic. The evidence also
raises a fact issue as to whether, in the absence of applicable laws or ordinances
governing emergency situations, Officer Walker’s conduct constituted conscious
indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Norma Torres and the general
public.
Because a trial court cannot properly grant a plea to the jurisdiction if the
jurisdictional facts are disputed, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court
REVERSE the trial court’s judgment and allow a jury to decide the issue.
25
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY
521 Starr Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 985-0600
Facsimile: (361) 985-0601
By: /s/George A. DeVera
Thomas J. Henry
State Bar No. 09484210
George A. DeVera
State Bar No. 24048431
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
NORMA TORRES
26
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD LIMITATION
I certify that I have reviewed the Appellee’s Brief and have concluded that
every factual statement made herein is supported by competent evidence included
in the appendix or the record.
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify
that the foregoing brief contains 6,449 words (excluding the caption, table of
contents, table of authorities, signature, proof of service, certification, and
certificate of compliance). This is a computer generated document created in
Microsoft Word, using 14-point typeface for all text, except for the footnotes,
which are in 12-point typeface. In making this certificate of compliance, I am
relying on the word count provided by the software used to prepare this document.
/S/ George A. DeVera
GEORGE A. DEVERA
STATE BAR NO. 24048431
27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing document has
been forwarded to all counsel of record in the manner indicated below on the 20th
day of April, 2015:
VIA E-SERVICE
Mark DeKoch
City of Corpus Christi
Legal Department
1201 Leopard Street
P.O. Box 9277
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 826-3372
Facsimile: (361) 826-3239
/s/George A. DeVera
GEORGE A. DEVERA
28
APPENDIX
In compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k), copies of the following
documents are included:
TAB 1………………………………………Order Granting Plea to the Jurisdiction
TAB 2……………………………………………………TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 546
TAB 3…………………………………………………Mejia v. City of San Antonio,
89 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2002)
TAB 4…………………………………City of Dallas v. Porter, 2002 WL 1773008
(Tex. App. – Dallas 2002, no writ.)
TAB 5………………………………....................Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue,
34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000)
TAB 6…………………………….…….Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda
133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004)
TAB 7……………………………………………..City of San Antonio v. Higle,
685 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
TAB 8……………………………………Texas Dep’t of Public Safety v. Bonilla,
2014 WL 2451176 (Tex. App. – El Paso, pet. filed)
29
Page 1
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
tional use statute.
Supreme Court of Texas. Reversed and rendered.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND WILD-
LIFE, Petitioner, Phillips, C.J., and Hecht, Owen, and Smith, JJ.,
v. joined parts I, II, III.A, III.B, III.C.2, III.C.3, III.D,
Maria MIRANDA and Ray Miranda, Respondents. and IV of Justice Wainwright's opinion.
No. 01–0619. Phillips, C.J., and Hecht and Smith, JJ., joined
Argued Oct. 30, 2002. part III.C.1 of Justice Wainwright's opinion.
April 2, 2004.
Wallace B. Jefferson, J., filed a dissenting opi-
Background: Visitor to state park and her husband nion.
sued the Parks and Wildlife Department for personal
injuries visitor sustained when a tree limb fell on her Scott Brister, J., filed a dissenting opinion in
head. The 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, which O'Neill and Schneider, J., joined.
Mickey R. Pennington, J., denied Department's plea to
the jurisdiction. Department appealed. The San An-
West Headnotes
tonio Court of Appeals, 55 S.W.3d 648, affirmed.
Review was granted.
[1] Courts 106 247(7)
Holdings: The Supreme Court, J. Dale Wainwright,
J., held that: 106 Courts
(1) in ruling on the plea to the jurisdiction, the trial 106VI Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
court could consider evidence beyond the allegations 106VI(B) Courts of Particular States
in the pleadings, disapproving of Sullivan v. Wilmer 106k247 Texas
Hutchins Indep. Sch. Dist., 47 S.W.3d 529, Denton 106k247(7) k. Review by or certificate
County v. Howard, 22 S.W.3d 113, Tex. Dep't of to Supreme Court by Court of Civil Appeals of ques-
Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Pearce, 16 tions where its decision conflicts with or overrules that
S.W.3d 456, Tex. State Employees Union/CWA Local of another Court of Civil Appeals or that of the Su-
6184 v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n, 16 S.W.3d 61, preme Court. Most Cited Cases
DalMac Constr. Co. v. Tex. A & M Univ., 35 S.W.3d
654, Univ. of Houston v. Elthon, 9 S.W.3d 351, Curbo A new decision of a court of appeals “conflicts”
v. State, Office of the Governor, 998 S.W.2d 337, City with a prior decision of another court of appeals or
of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1, and Bland Indep. prior decision of the Supreme Court, as basis for Su-
Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 989 S.W.2d 441, and preme Court's jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal
(2) Parks and Wildlife Department did not act with from the new decision, when the prior and new cases
gross negligence, and thus, Department had sovereign are so similar that the decision in one case is neces-
immunity under Texas Tort Claims Act and recrea- sarily conclusive of the decision in the other.
V.T.C.A., Government Code § 22.001(a)(2).
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
jurisdiction; disapproving of Sullivan v. Wilmer Hut-
[2] Pleading 302 111.36 chins Indep. Sch. Dist., 47 S.W.3d 529, Denton
County v. Howard, 22 S.W.3d 113, Tex. Dep't of
Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Pearce, 16
302 Pleading
S.W.3d 456, Tex. State Employees Union/CWA Local
302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
6184 v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n, 16 S.W.3d 61,
General
DalMac Constr. Co. v. Tex. A & M Univ., 35 S.W.3d
302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
654, Univ. of Houston v. Elthon, 9 S.W.3d 351, Curbo
atement
v. State, Office of the Governor, 998 S.W.2d 337, City
302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings
of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1, and Bland Indep.
Thereon
Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 989 S.W.2d 441..
302k111.36 k. Scope of inquiry and
matters considered in general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 106k122) [4] States 360 191.4(1)
The plaintiff's allegations, in the petition, of the 360 States
amount in controversy control for subject matter ju- 360VI Actions
risdiction purposes, unless the party challenging ju- 360k191 Liability and Consent of State to Be
risdiction pleads and proves that the plaintiff's allega- Sued in General
tions of the amount in controversy were made frau- 360k191.4 Necessity of Consent
dulently for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction. 360k191.4(1) k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
[3] Pleading 302 111.36
Sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of
subject matter jurisdiction for lawsuits in which the
302 Pleading
State or certain governmental units have been sued,
302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
unless the State consents to suit.
General
302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
atement [5] States 360 191.1
302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings
Thereon 360 States
302k111.36 k. Scope of inquiry and 360VI Actions
matters considered in general. Most Cited Cases 360k191 Liability and Consent of State to Be
(Formerly 106k39) Sued in General
360k191.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
If the alleged defect in subject matter jurisdiction
does not involve the amount in controversy, the party States 360 208
alleging the defect by a plea to the jurisdiction is not
required to further allege the pleadings are fraudulent, 360 States
in order for the trial court to have authority to consider 360VI Actions
evidence outside of allegations in pleadings if con- 360k208 k. Pleading. Most Cited Cases
sideration of such additional evidence is necessary for
trial court to determine whether it has subject matter
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
The State's immunity from liability is an affirma- General
tive defense, while immunity from suit deprives a 302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
court of subject matter jurisdiction. atement
302k104 Plea to the Jurisdiction
[6] Municipal Corporations 268 851 302k104(1) k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
268 Municipal Corporations
268XII Torts Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial
268XII(E) Condition or Use of Public Build- court's subject matter jurisdiction, and thus is properly
ings and Other Property asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.
268k851 k. Parks and public squares and
places. Most Cited Cases [9] Courts 106 39
The recreational use statute limits a governmental 106 Courts
unit's duty for premises defects, for which sovereign 106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction
immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act is waived, in General
to that which is owed a trespasser, i.e., not to injure 106I(A) In General
that person willfully, wantonly, or through gross neg- 106k39 k. Determination of questions of
ligence. V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§ jurisdiction in general. Most Cited Cases
75.002(c, d), 101.021, 101.025, 101.058.
The trial court must determine at its earliest op-
[7] Negligence 272 273 portunity whether it has the constitutional or statutory
authority to decide the case, before allowing the liti-
272 Negligence gation to proceed.
272V Heightened Degrees of Negligence
272k273 k. Gross negligence. Most Cited [10] Courts 106 39
Cases
106 Courts
Gross negligence involves two components: (1) 106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction
viewed objectively from the actor's standpoint, the act in General
or omission complained of must involve an extreme 106I(A) In General
degree of risk, considering the probability and mag- 106k39 k. Determination of questions of
nitude of the potential harm to others, and (2) the actor jurisdiction in general. Most Cited Cases
must have actual, subjective awareness of the risk
involved, but nevertheless proceed in conscious in- Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is
difference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. a question of law.
[8] Pleading 302 104(1) [11] Appeal and Error 30 893(1)
302 Pleading 30 Appeal and Error
302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in 30XVI Review
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
30XVI(F) Trial De Novo 302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
30k892 Trial De Novo General
30k893 Cases Triable in Appellate 302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
Court atement
30k893(1) k. In general. Most Cited 302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings
Cases Thereon
302k111.38 k. Petition, complaint, dec-
Whether a pleader has alleged facts that affirma- laration or other pleadings. Most Cited Cases
tively demonstrate a trial court's subject matter juris-
diction is a question of law reviewed de novo. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the
pleadings, the court determines if the pleader has
[12] Courts 106 39 alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cause, con-
struing the pleadings liberally in favor of the pleader
106 Courts
and looking to the pleader's intent.
106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction
in General
106I(A) In General [14] Pleading 302 111.48
106k39 k. Determination of questions of
jurisdiction in general. Most Cited Cases 302 Pleading
302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
Whether undisputed evidence of jurisdictional General
facts establishes a trial court's subject matter jurisdic- 302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
tion is a question of law; however, in some cases, atement
disputed evidence of jurisdictional facts that also im- 302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings
plicate the merits of the case may require resolution by Thereon
the finder of fact. 302k111.48 k. Amendments following
sustaining of pleas. Most Cited Cases
[13] Pleading 302 104(1)
If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to
affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's subject
302 Pleading
matter jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demon-
302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
strate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one
General
of pleading sufficiency, and the plaintiffs should be
302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
afforded the opportunity to amend following sustain-
atement
ing of plea to the jurisdiction.
302k104 Plea to the Jurisdiction
302k104(1) k. In general. Most Cited
Cases [15] Pleading 302 111.48
Pleading 302 111.38 302 Pleading
302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
General
302 Pleading
302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
atement liminary hearing or await a fuller development of the
302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings case, mindful that the determination of whether sub-
Thereon ject matter jurisdiction exists must be made as soon as
302k111.48 k. Amendments following practicable.
sustaining of pleas. Most Cited Cases
[18] Pleading 302 111.36
If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence
of subject matter jurisdiction, then a plea to the juris- 302 Pleading
diction may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs 302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
an opportunity to amend. General
302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
[16] Appeal and Error 30 863 atement
302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings
30 Appeal and Error Thereon
30XVI Review 302k111.36 k. Scope of inquiry and
30XVI(A) Scope, Standards, and Extent, in matters considered in general. Most Cited Cases
General
30k862 Extent of Review Dependent on In a case in which the jurisdictional challenge,
Nature of Decision Appealed from relating to subject matter jurisdiction, implicates the
30k863 k. In general. Most Cited Cases merits of the plaintiffs' cause of action and the plea to
the jurisdiction includes evidence beyond the allega-
If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the exis- tions in the pleadings, the trial court reviews the re-
tence of jurisdictional facts, the appellate court con- levant evidence to determine if a fact issue exists.
siders relevant evidence, beyond the allegations in the
pleadings, submitted by the parties when necessary to [19] Judgment 228 178
resolve the subject matter jurisdiction issues raised, as
the trial court is required to do. 228 Judgment
228V On Motion or Summary Proceeding
[17] Courts 106 39 228k178 k. Nature of summary judgment.
Most Cited Cases
106 Courts
106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction Purpose of summary judgments is to eliminate
in General patently unmeritorious claims and untenable defenses.
106I(A) In General Vernon's Ann.Texas Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 166a.
106k39 k. Determination of questions of
jurisdiction in general. Most Cited Cases [20] Pleading 302 111.39(.5)
When the consideration of a trial court's subject 302 Pleading
matter jurisdiction requires the examination of evi- 302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
dence beyond the allegations in the pleadings, the trial General
court exercises its discretion in deciding whether the 302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
jurisdictional determination should be made at a pre-
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 6
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
atement which the pleading requirement has been met and
302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings evidence has been submitted to support the plea that
Thereon implicates the merits of the case, the appellate court
302k111.39 Presumptions and Burden takes as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant
of Proof and indulges every reasonable inference and resolve
302k111.39(.5) k. In general. Most any doubts in the nonmovant's favor.
Cited Cases
[23] Pleading 302 111.34
After the State asserts and supports with evidence
that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 302 Pleading
based on the State's sovereign immunity, the plaintiff 302III Responses or Responsive Pleadings in
is required, if the facts underlying the merits and General
subject matter jurisdiction are intertwined, to show 302III(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Ab-
that there is a disputed material fact regarding the atement
jurisdictional issue. 302k111 Decision of Issue, and Proceedings
Thereon
[21] Appeal and Error 30 893(1) 302k111.34 k. Time for trial. Most Cited
Cases
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review The scheduling of a hearing on a plea to the ju-
30XVI(F) Trial De Novo risdiction is left to the discretion of the trial court,
30k892 Trial De Novo which is in the best position to evaluate the appropri-
30k893 Cases Triable in Appellate ate time frame for hearing such a plea in any particular
Court case.
30k893(1) k. In general. Most Cited
Cases [24] States 360 112.2(6)
Appellate courts reviewing a challenge to a trial 360 States
court's subject matter jurisdiction review the trial 360III Property, Contracts, and Liabilities
court's ruling de novo. 360k112 Torts
360k112.2 Nature of Act or Claim
[22] Appeal and Error 30 916(1) 360k112.2(6) k. State parks, injuries in.
Most Cited Cases
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review Visitor to state park alleged sufficient facts re-
30XVI(G) Presumptions garding Parks and Wildlife Department's gross neg-
30k915 Pleading ligence to survive a plea to the jurisdiction by the
30k916 In General Department based solely on the pleadings, with the
30k916(1) k. In general. Most Cited Department alleging sovereign immunity under the
Cases Texas Tort Claims Act and recreational use statute, as
to park visitor's premises defect claim alleging she
When reviewing a plea to the jurisdiction in was seriously injured by falling tree limb at camp site;
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 7
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
visitor alleged that she specifically asked Depart- 268 Municipal Corporations
ment's employee for recommendation of safe camping 268XII Torts
location, that Department was aware of unpruned, 268XII(E) Condition or Use of Public Build-
uninspected tree branches creating dangerous defec- ings and Other Property
tive condition at camp site but failed to alleviate the 268k847 k. Nature and grounds of liability
danger, and that Department consciously and delibe- of municipality as proprietor. Most Cited Cases
rately failed to warn visitor of the extremely danger-
ous condition, though visitor did not cite specific Tort Claims Act's scheme of a limited waiver of
evidence that Department had actual knowledge that immunity from suit does not allow plaintiffs to cir-
tree limb would fall. (Per Wainwright, J., for a plu- cumvent the heightened standards of a premises defect
rality of the court.) V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Re- claim by re-casting the same acts as a claim relating to
medies Code §§ 75.002(c, d), 101.021, 101.025, the negligent condition or use of tangible property.
101.058. V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 101.022.
[25] States 360 112.2(6) *220 Howard G. Baldwin, First Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Jeffrey S. Boyd, Thompson & Knight, Harry W.
360 States Deckard, Office of Attorney General, Nelly R. Her-
360III Property, Contracts, and Liabilities rera, Office of Attorney General, Julie Caruthers
360k112 Torts Parsley, Public Utility Com'n, and Lisa Royce Eskow,
360k112.2 Nature of Act or Claim Attorney General's Office, Austin, for Petitioner.
360k112.2(6) k. State parks, injuries in.
Most Cited Cases Emmett R. Harris, Law Office of R. Emmett Harris,
Jerry Don Evans, Uvalde, TX, for Respondent.
Parks and Wildlife Department did not act with
gross negligence, and thus, Department had sovereign Justice WAINWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the
immunity under Texas Tort Claims Act and recrea- Court with respect to parts I., II., III.A., III.B., III.C.2.,
tional use statute, as to state park visitor's premises III.C.3., III.D., and IV., in which Chief Justice
defect claim alleging she was seriously injured by PHILLIPS, Justice HECHT, Justice OWEN, and Jus-
falling tree limb at camp site; operations and main- tice SMITH joined, and a plurality opinion with re-
tenance specialist for state park provided affidavit spect to Part III.C.1., in which Chief Justice PHIL-
opining that tree limb fell because of unpredictable LIPS, Justice HECHT, and Justice SMITH joined.
and unforeseeable phenomenon known as “sudden Maria Miranda sustained injuries after a tree limb
branch drop syndrome,” and there was no evidence fell on her at Garner State Park in Uvalde County.
that such syndrome created extreme risk of danger or Maria and her husband Ray sued the Texas Parks and
that Department had actual subjective knowledge of Wildlife Department,FN1 alleging negligence and *221
that risk but nevertheless proceeded in conscious dis- gross negligence. The Department filed a plea to the
regard for safety of others. V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & jurisdiction, to which it attached supporting evidence,
Remedies Code §§ 75.002(c, d), 101.021, 101.025, and argued that sovereign immunity barred the Mi-
101.058. randas' claims. The trial court denied the plea to the
jurisdiction and a unanimous court of appeals af-
[26] Municipal Corporations 268 847 firmed, holding that the trial court could not consider
evidence in support of the plea because the Depart-
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 8
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
ment did not allege that the Mirandas' pleadings were ated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The
a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining juris- Mirandas asked a park ranger to recommend a camp-
diction. 55 S.W.3d 648, 652. site that would be safe for children. While standing
next to a picnic table at the recommended campsite, a
FN1. The Mirandas originally named the falling tree branch approximately twelve inches in
“Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife” as diameter and fifteen feet long struck Maria on the
defendant but corrected the name to the head. As a result of the incident, Maria suffered ex-
“Texas Parks and Wildlife Department” in tensive injuries to her head, neck, and spine. Ray
their third amended petition. Because the suffered mental anguish and other damages related to
parties and lower courts retained the original his wife's injuries.
style of the case, we retain that style but in
our opinion refer to the Department by its On May 7, 1999, the Mirandas filed suit against
correct name. the Department, alleging negligence and later
amended their suit to add gross negligence claims.
In accord with our decision in Bland Independent With respect to the gross negligence claims, the Mi-
School District v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2000), we randas alleged that the Department “knew of the
hold that the trial court in this case was required to dangers of its falling tree branches, failed to inspect,
examine the evidence on which the parties relied to failed to prune, failed to alleviate or remove the dan-
determine if a fact issue existed regarding the alleged ger, and consciously and deliberately failed to warn
gross negligence of the Department. Due to the un- Plaintiffs of the extremely dangerous condition,”
usual confluence of standards erected by the Legisla- “knew that its property contained hidden, dangerous
ture for waiver of sovereign immunity in the Texas defect [sic] in that its tree branches which have not
Tort Claims Act and the recreational use statute, been inspected or pruned regularly fall,” failed “to
plaintiffs must plead gross negligence to establish make safe the dangerous condition of its campsite
subject matter jurisdiction. Further, if the plaintiffs' trees,” and “failed to warn or make reasonably safe the
factual allegations are challenged with supporting dangerous condition of which it was aware.” In addi-
evidence necessary to consideration of the plea to the tion, the Mirandas alleged that the Department's
jurisdiction, to avoid dismissal plaintiffs must raise at conduct was “willful, wanton, or grossly negligent.”
least a genuine issue of material fact to overcome the
challenge to the trial court's subject matter jurisdic- Over a year after the Mirandas filed suit and after
tion. Because the Mirandas failed to raise a genuine the parties conducted discovery, the Department filed
issue of material fact regarding the alleged gross neg- a plea to the jurisdiction*222 and motion to dismiss,
ligence of the Department, we conclude that the trial arguing that the Mirandas' allegations were insuffi-
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this cient to invoke a waiver of the Department's sovereign
lawsuit. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the immunity under the standard established in the Tort
court of appeals and render judgment dismissing the Claims Act and the recreational use statute.FN2 TEX.
case. CIV. PRAC. & REM. Code §§ 101.001–.109; id. §§
75.001–.004. The Department attached evidence in
I. Factual and Procedural Background support of its plea. The Mirandas filed a response to
The Mirandas' third amended petition contains the Department's plea and their third amended original
the following allegations: In April 1998, the Mirandas petition. In their response, the Mirandas stated that
and their family were camping and picnicking as they relied on evidence attached to the Department's
paying guests at Garner State Park, owned and oper- plea, including written discovery responses from the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 9
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
Department and the deposition the Mirandas took of tablish subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with the
assistant park manager Craig VanBaarle. At the trial litigation.
court's hearing on the Department's plea, the parties
addressed the allegations in the Mirandas' third After originally dismissing the petition for want
amended original petition. The next day, the trial court of jurisdiction, we granted the Department's petition
denied the plea. The Department filed this interlocu- on motion for rehearing. Before we consider the
tory appeal claiming that the trial court erroneously substantive issues presented, we first determine
denied its plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dis- whether we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory
miss. Id. § 51.014(a)(8). The court of appeals affirmed appeal.
the trial court's denial of the plea, stating that the Mi-
randas pled a premises defect cause of action based on
II. Conflicts Jurisdiction
gross negligence under the recreational use statute. 55
[1] When there is no dissent in the court of ap-
S.W.3d at 652. The court of appeals rejected the De-
peals, this Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory
partment's argument that there was no evidence to
appeals only if the court of appeals' decision “holds
support gross negligence, holding that “the trial court
differently” or conflicts with “a prior decision of
was not authorized to inquire into the substance of the
another court of appeals or of the supreme court on a
claims because the Department did not specifically
question of law material to a decision of the case.”
allege that the Mirandas' allegations were pled merely
TEX. GOV'T CODE 22.001(a)(2); FN3 *223Schein v.
as a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining
Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex.2002); Tex.
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554 and
Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. White, 46
Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132, 135
S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex.2001). Two decisions conflict
(Tex.App.-BAustin 2000, no pet.)).
for purposes of establishing our jurisdiction under
section 22.001(a)(2) when the two cases are so similar
FN2. The Department also moved for sum- that the decision in one case is necessarily conclusive
mary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil of the decision in the other. Schein, 102 S.W.3d at
Procedure 166a(b)-(c)and 166a(I). The trial 687–88; White, 46 S.W.3d at 867. “The conflict must
court denied both motions, but the Depart- be on the very question of law actually involved and
ment does not appeal the trial court's denial determined, in respect of an issue in both cases, the
of either motion. test being whether one would operate to overrule the
other in case they were both rendered by the same
The Department contends that the court of ap- court.” Christy v. Williams, 156 Tex. 555, 298 S.W.2d
peals erred in relying solely upon the conclusory al- 565, 568–69 (1957) (citation omitted).
legations found in the Mirandas' petition to affirm the
trial courts denial of the Department's plea to the ju- FN3. The Legislature amended section
risdiction and in disregarding the Department's evi- 22.001 of the Government Code, effective
dence submitted with its plea. Specifically, the De- September 1, 2003. Act of June 11, 2003,
partment contends that gross negligence is a jurisdic- 78th Leg., R.S., Ch. 204 (codified as section
tional prerequisite to the Mirandas' claims and that its 22.001(e) of the Texas Government Code).
evidence affirmatively negates gross negligence. The The amendment, which applies to actions
Department further argues that because the Mirandas filed on or after September 1, 2003 and does
failed to plead specific facts alleging gross negligence not govern our jurisdiction in this case, pro-
in their petition or introduce evidence to controvert the vides that “one court holds differently from
evidence in the Department's plea, they failed to es- another when there is inconsistency in their
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 10
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
respective decisions that should be clarified when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues
to remove unnecessary uncertainty in the law raised. 34 S.W.3d at 555; see also County of Cameron
and unfairness to litigants.” v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 556–57 (Tex.2002) (con-
sidering pleadings and limited jurisdictional evidence
The Department contends that this Court has ju- in evaluating forseeability element of premises defect
risdiction over its interlocutory appeal because the claim under the Tort Claims Act); Tex. Dep't of
court of appeals' decision here conflicts with our opi- Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583, 587
nion in Bland. In Bland, we held that a trial court “may (Tex.2001) (examining pleadings and limited juris-
consider evidence and must do so when necessary to dictional evidence to determine whether plaintiff af-
resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.” 34 S.W.3d at firmatively demonstrated waiver of sovereign im-
555 (emphasis added). While recognizing that “a munity); White, 46 S.W.3d at 868 (analyzing the facts
dilatory plea does not authorize an inquiry so far into alleged by the plaintiff and to the extent relevant,
the substance of the claims presented that plaintiffs are evidence submitted by the parties, in considering
required to put on their case simply to establish juris- whether plaintiff stated a claim for injuries caused by
diction,” we explained that “because a court must not “motor-driven equipment” under the Tort Claims
act without determining that it has subject-matter Act). *224 In Bland, our preclusion of a trial court's
jurisdiction to do so, it should hear evidence as ne- inquiry behind the facts pled in determining subject
cessary to determine the issue before proceeding with matter jurisdiction was limited to the jurisdictional
the case.” Id. at 554. “The court should, of course, amount. 34 S.W.3d at 554. Even this bar could be
confine itself to the evidence relevant to the jurisdic- lifted, and evidence of the jurisdictional amount con-
tional issue.” Id. at 555. sidered, in circumstances in which an adverse party
asserts that the amount in controversy was pled as a
sham to obtain jurisdiction.FN4 Id. That circumstance
In Bland, we included examples of when relevant
is not at issue here. Thus, the court of appeals' holding
evidence may be considered in determining whether
conflicts with the same question of law that we de-
jurisdiction has been established. See id. at 554. We
cided in Bland, and the opinions cannot stand together.
also observed that when the defendant contends that
Schein, 102 S.W.3d at 689. This conflict provides the
the amount in controversy falls below the trial court's
basis for our jurisdiction to consider the merits of the
jurisdictional limit, the trial court should limit its
plea. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.001(a)(2).
inquiry to the pleadings. Id. In that situation, we con-
cluded, “the plaintiff's pleadings are determinative
unless the defendant specifically alleges that the FN4. The plaintiff's allegations in the petition
amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of the amount in controversy control for ju-
of wrongfully obtaining jurisdiction.” Id. risdictional purposes unless the party chal-
lenging jurisdiction pleads and proves that
the plaintiff's allegations of the amount in
[2][3] In this case, the court of appeals inaccu-
controversy were made fraudulently for the
rately stated and then misapplied Bland's holding. 55
purpose of obtaining jurisdiction. See Bland,
S.W.3d at 650–52. The court of appeals held that an
34 S.W.3d at 554; Cont'l Coffee Prods. Co. v.
inquiry behind the factual allegations pled in support
Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex.1996);
of subject matter jurisdiction was improper unless the
Tidball v. Eichoff, 66 Tex. 58, 17 S.W. 263,
Department specifically alleged that the Mirandas'
263 (1886). We disapprove of courts of ap-
allegations were pled merely as a sham to wrongfully
peals' holdings that require a party to allege
obtain jurisdiction. Id. at 652. This conflicts with our
that pleadings, other than the jurisdictional
holding in Bland that a court must consider evidence
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 11
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
amount, are fraudulent in order for the trial Texas Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of
court to consider evidence, when otherwise sovereign immunity. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
necessary, of whether it has jurisdiction over REM.CODE §§ 101.001–.109. Sovereign immunity
a case. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Wilmer Hutchins includes two distinct principles, immunity from suit
Indep. Sch. Dist., 47 S.W.3d 529, 531 and immunity from liability. Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638;
(Tex.App.-Dallas 2000), rev'd on other Fed. Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405. Immunity from liability
grounds, 51 S.W.3d 293 (Tex.2001); Denton is an affirmative defense, while immunity from suit
County v. Howard, 22 S.W.3d 113, 117–18 deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction. Jones, 8
(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, no pet.); Tex. S.W.3d at 638; Fed. Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405. The Tort
Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retarda- Claims Act creates a unique statutory scheme in which
tion v. Pearce, 16 S.W.3d 456, 460 the two immunities are co-extensive: “Sovereign
(Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.); immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the extent
Tex. State Employees Union/CWA Local of liability created by this chapter.” TEX. CIV. PRAC.
6184 v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n, 16 S.W.3d & REM.CODE § 101.025(a); State ex rel. State Dep't
61, 65, 66 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.); of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d
DalMac Constr. Co. v. Tex. A & M Univ., 35 322, 326 (Tex.2002); Miller, 51 S.W.3d at 587. Thus,
S.W.3d 654, 655 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Austin the Department is immune from suit unless the Tort
1999), rev'd on other grounds, sub nom. Gen. Claims *225 Act expressly waives immunity. See
Servs. Comm'n v. Little–Tex Insulation Co., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE §§ 101.001(3)(A)
Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex.2001); Univ. of (defining a governmental unit to include “all depart-
Houston v. Elthon, 9 S.W.3d 351, 356 ments” of the state), 101.021, 101.025; White, 46
(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. S.W.3d at 868.
dism'd w.o.j.); Curbo v. State, Office of the
Governor, 998 S.W.2d 337, 341–42 The Tort Claims Act expressly waives sovereign
(Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.); City of Sa- immunity in three areas: “ ‘use of publicly owned
ginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1, 3 automobiles, premises defects, and injuries arising out
(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. dism-d of conditions or use of property.’ ” Brown, 80 S.W.3d
w.o.j.); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 989 at 554 (quoting Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Able, 35
S.W.2d 441, 447 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999), S.W.3d 608, 611 (Tex.2000)); see TEX. CIV. PRAC.
rev'd, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2000). & REM CODE § 101.021. Section 101.058 of the Tort
Claims Act further modifies a governmental unit's
III. The Department's Plea to the Jurisdiction waiver of immunity from suit by imposing the limita-
A. Sovereign Immunity tions of liability articulated in the recreational use
[4][5] In Texas, sovereign immunity deprives a statute. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 101.058
trial court of subject matter jurisdiction for lawsuits in (“To the extent that Chapter 75 limits the liability of a
which the state or certain governmental units have governmental unit under circumstances in which the
been sued unless the state consents to suit. Tex. Dep't governmental unit would be liable under [the Tort
of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999); Claims Act], Chapter 75 controls.”).
Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405
(Tex.1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as The recreational use statute provides:
stated in Little–Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d at 593;
Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.1980);
If an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property
Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1847). The
other than agricultural land gives permission to
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 12
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
another to enter the premises for recreation, the actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but
owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permis- nevertheless proceed in conscious indifference to the
sion, does not: rights, safety, or welfare of others.” Louisiana–Pacific
Corp. v. Andrade, 19 S.W.3d 245, 246 (Tex.1999)
(1) assure that the premises are safe for that pur- (citing Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 23
pose; (Tex.1994)).
(2) owe to the person to whom permission is FN5. The recreational use statute does not
granted a greater degree of care than is owed to a limit the liability of an owner, lessee, or oc-
trespasser on the premises; or cupant “who has been grossly negligent or
has acted with malicious intent or in bad
faith.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE
(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any
75.002(d).
injury to any individual or property caused by any
act of the person to whom permission is granted.
B. Standard of Review
[8][9] Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a
Id. § 75.002(c)(1)-(3). Recreational use includes
trial court's subject matter jurisdiction*226 and thus is
camping and picnicking, the activities in which the
properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. Jones, 8
Mirandas were engaged at the state park when Maria
S.W.3d at 637; see also Hosner, 1 Tex. at 769 (re-
was injured. Id. § 75.001(3). As applied to a govern-
cognizing as appropriate procedure the challenge of a
mental unit, the recreational use statute limits liability
courts subject matter jurisdiction through a plea to the
even if the person pays to enter the premises. Id. §
jurisdiction). The trial court must determine at its
75.003(c) (excepting governmental units from the
earliest opportunity whether it has the constitutional or
chapter's exclusion of landowners who charge a fee
statutory authority to decide the case before allowing
for recreational use of land).
the litigation to proceed. Austin & N.W.R. Co. v.
Cluck, 97 Tex. 172, 77 S.W. 403, 405 (1903)
[6][7] The recreational use statute limits the De-
(“[T]here can be no doubt that the courts of Texas
partment's duty for premises defects to that which is
must look to the Constitution of this state, the enact-
owed a trespasser.FN5 Id. The limited duty owed a
ments of the Legislature, and the common law for
trespasser is not to injure that person willfully, wan-
their authority to proceed ....);” see also State Bar of
tonly, or through gross negligence. Tex. Utils. Elec.
Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex.1994) (“As
Co. v. Timmons, 947 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.1997).
a general proposition, before a court may address the
Therefore, a governmental unit waives sovereign
merits of any case, the court must have jurisdiction
immunity under the recreational use statute and the
over the party or the property subject to the suit, ju-
Tort Claims Act only if it is grossly negligent. TEX.
risdiction over the subject matter, jurisdiction to enter
CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 75.002(c)-(d); City of
the particular judgment, and capacity to act as a
Bellmead v. Torres, 89 S.W.3d 611, 613 (Tex.2002);
court.)”; Gentry v. Bowser, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 21
Timmons, 947 S.W.2d at 193. “[G]ross negligence
S.W. 569, 570 (Fort Worth 1893, no writ) (“Certainly
involves two components: (1) viewed objectively
the court has the right to hear the necessary evidence
from the actor's standpoint, the act or omission com-
to enable it to decide as to whether or not it has power
plained of must involve an extreme degree of risk,
to try the case it is sought to have it adjudicate,
considering the probability and magnitude of the po-
whether the allegations disclosing such want of juris-
tential harm to others; and (2) the actor must have
diction appear in the petition of the plaintiff, or in the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 13
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
plea to the jurisdiction by the defendant.”). Id. If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to
affirmatively demonstrate the trial courts jurisdiction
[10][11][12] Whether a court has subject matter but do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects
jurisdiction is a question of law. Tex. Natural Res. in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency
Conservation Comm'n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, and the plaintiffs*227 should be afforded the oppor-
855 (Tex.2002). Whether a pleader has alleged facts tunity to amend. Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555. If the
that affirmatively demonstrate a trial court's subject pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of juris-
matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de diction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted
novo. Likewise, whether undisputed evidence of ju- without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to
risdictional facts establishes a trial court's jurisdiction amend. Id.
is also a question of law. However, in some cases,
disputed evidence of jurisdictional facts that also im- [16][17][18] However, if a plea to the jurisdiction
plicate the merits of the case may require resolution by challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we
the finder of fact. See Gates v. Pitts, 291 S.W. 948, consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties
949 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1927, no writ); Gentry, when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues
21 S.W. at 570; see also Valentin v. Hosp. Bella Vista, raised, as the trial court is required to do. See Bland,
254 F.3d 358, 363 n. 3 (1st Cir.2001) (observing that 34 S.W.3d at 555 (confining the evidentiary review to
in certain situations, the predicate facts can be so evidence that is relevant to the jurisdictional issue).
inextricably linked to the merits of the controversy When the consideration of a trial court's subject matter
that the district court may “defer resolution of the jurisdiction requires the examination of evidence, the
jurisdictional issue until the time of trial”); Cameron trial court exercises its discretion in deciding whether
v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 131 F.3d 1167, 1170 the jurisdictional determination should be made at a
(6th Cir.1997) (“[W]hether a district court has subject preliminary hearing or await a fuller development of
matter jurisdiction is a question for the court, not a the case, mindful that this determination must be made
jury, to decide, even if the determination requires as soon as practicable. Id. at 554. Then, in a case in
making factual findings, unless the jurisdictional issue which the jurisdictional challenge implicates the me-
is inextricably bound to the merits of the case.”); Wil- rits of the plaintiffs' cause of action and the plea to the
liamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 n. 6, 416 n. 10 jurisdiction includes evidence, the trial court reviews
(5th Cir.1981) (suggesting that a federal district the relevant evidence to determine if a fact issue ex-
court's role in determining jurisdictional facts may be ists. The United States Supreme Court and all of the
more limited in cases in which the jurisdictional attack federal circuits have authorized federal district courts
implicates the merits of plaintiff's cause of action). In to consider evidence in deciding motions to dismiss
this case, we address a plea to the jurisdiction in which for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
undisputed evidence implicates both the subject mat- FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1); Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731,
ter jurisdiction of the court and the merits of the case. 735 & n. 4, 67 S. Ct. 1009, 91 L. Ed. 1209, (1947),
overruled by implication on other grounds by Larson
[13][14][15] When a plea to the jurisdiction v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S.
challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader 682, 69 S. Ct. 1457, 93 L. Ed. 1628 (1949) (observing
has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the that as a general rule, district courts have authority to
court's jurisdiction to hear the cause. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. inquire “into the facts as they exist” “by affidavits or
v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 otherwise” as well as the pleadings when determining
(Tex.1993). We construe the pleadings liberally in whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction).FN6 If
favor of the plaintiffs and look to the pleaders' intent. the evidence*228 creates a fact question regarding the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 14
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot grant Rule 12(b)(1) motion); Williams v. United
the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be States, 50 F.3d 299, 304 (4th Cir.1995) (“In
resolved by the fact finder. However, if the relevant ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court
evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question may consider exhibits outside the plead-
on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court rules on the ings.”); Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law. 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir.1994) (acknowl-
edging a trial court's “authority to consider
FN6. See, e.g., Harris v. P.A.M. Transp., evidence presented beyond the pleadings ...
Inc., 339 F.3d 635, 637 n. 4 (8th Cir.2003) which may include considering affidavits,
(acknowledging district court's authority to allowing further discovery, hearing oral tes-
consider matters outside the pleadings when timony, conducting an evidentiary hearing”);
subject matter jurisdiction is challenged un- Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Sci., 974 F.2d 192,
der Rule 12(b)(1)); Johnson v. Apna Ghar, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992) ( “[W]here necessary,
Inc., 330 F.3d 999, 1001 (7th Cir.2003) the court may consider the complaint sup-
(observing that when considering a motion plemented by undisputed facts evidenced in
for dismissal for lack of subject matter juris- the record, or the complaint supplemented by
diction, “ ‘[t]he district court may properly ... undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of
view whatever evidence has been submitted disputed facts.”); Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919
on the issue’ ” (quoting Long v. Shorebank F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir.1990) (noting that
Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th “substantial authority” acknowledges the
Cir.1999))); Sizova v. Nat'l Inst. of Standards trial court's freedom to consider disputed
& Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1324 (10th evidence when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1)
Cir.2002) (noting district court's “ ‘wide motion) (citations omitted); Gould, Inc. v.
discretion to allow affidavits, other docu- Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann, 853 F.2d 445,
ments, and a limited evidentiary hearing to 451 (6th Cir.1988) (“[T]he district court may
resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under consider affidavits, allow discovery, hear
Rule 12(b)(1)’ ” (quoting Holt v. United oral testimony, order an evidentiary hearing,
States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir.1995))); or even postpone its determination if the
Valentin, 254 F.3d at 363 (district court has question of jurisdiction is intertwined with
“broad authority to order discovery, consider the merits.”); Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. &
extrinsic evidence, and hold evidentiary Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977)
hearings in order to determine its own juris- (acknowledging that “substantial authority”
diction”); Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United allows trial courts to weigh the evidence of
States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir.2000) (“ disputed facts when considering a Rule
‘district court obviously does not abuse its 12(b)(1) motion); see also 5A Charles Alan
discretion by looking to ... extra-pleading Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
material’ ” in deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) mo- and Procedure § 1364, at 468–469 (2d
tion to dismiss for lack of subject matter ju- ed.1990).
risdiction (quoting St. Clair v. City of Chico,
880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.1989))); Maka- [19][20] We acknowledge that this standard
rova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d generally mirrors that of a summary judgment under
Cir.2000) (allowing district court to “refer to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c). We adhere to
evidence outside the pleadings” to resolve a the fundamental precept that a court must not proceed
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 15
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
on the merits of a case until legitimate challenges to its trum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 911
jurisdiction have been decided. This standard accom- (Tex.1997). We indulge every reasonable inference
plishes this goal and more. It also protects the interests and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Id.
of the state and the injured claimants in cases like this
one, in which the determination of the subject matter [23] In his dissent JUSTICE JEFFERSON criti-
jurisdiction of the court implicates the merits of the cizes this standard of review as depriving plaintiffs
parties' cause of action. The standard allows the state responding to a plea of the procedural protections of a
in a timely manner to extricate itself from litigation if motion for summary judgment, including a twen-
it is truly immune. However, by reserving for the fact ty-*229 one day notice period or an adequate time to
finder the resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts conduct discovery. TEX.R. CIV. P. 166a(c), 166a(i).
that implicate the merits of the claim or defense, we However, the scheduling of a hearing of a plea to the
preserve the parties' right to present the merits of their jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the trial court,
case at trial. Similar to the purpose of a plea to the which is in the best position to evaluate the appropri-
jurisdiction, which is to defeat a cause of action for ate time frame for hearing a plea in any particular case.
which the state has not waived sovereign immunity This procedure does not dramatically differ from that
(usually before the state has incurred the full costs of outlined in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a go-
litigation), the purpose of summary judgments in verning special appearances. Although Rule 120a
Texas is “ ‘to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims requires any affidavits to be used at a hearing on a
and untenable defenses.’ ” Casso v. Brand, 776 special appearance to be served at least seven days
S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex.1989) (quoting City of Houston before the hearing, it does not specify the length of a
v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 n. 5 notice period and is therefore presumably subject to
(Tex.1979)). By requiring the state to meet the sum- the three-day notice period of Rule 21. TEX.R. CIV.
mary judgment standard of proof in cases like this one, P. 21. Rule 120a allows the trial court to order a con-
we protect the plaintiffs from having to “put on their tinuance and allow time for discovery if the devel-
case simply to establish jurisdiction.” Bland, 34 opment of the case requires it. Nothing prevents a trial
S.W.3d at 554. Instead, after the state asserts and court from doing the same with a plea to the jurisdic-
supports with evidence that the trial court lacks subject tion where evidence is necessary.
matter jurisdiction, we simply require the plaintiffs,
when the facts underlying the merits and subject
Many other procedures in Texas practice ranging
matter jurisdiction are intertwined, to show that there
from a trial court's rulings on motions to strike inter-
is a disputed material fact regarding the jurisdictional
vention to the timing of a class certification decision to
issue. See Huckabee v. Time Warner Entm't Co. L.P.,
even the alteration of the summary judgment notice
19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000); Phan Son Van v.
periods—also “depend[ ] ... upon the wise exercise of
Pena, 990 S.W.2d 751, 753 (Tex.1999).
discretion by the trial court.” Union Carbide Corp. v.
B.D. Moye, 798 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.1990) (Hecht,
[21][22] Appellate courts reviewing a challenge J., concurring); see, e.g., TEX.R. CIV. P. 42(c)(1)(A)
to a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction review the (directing a trial court to determine whether a suit may
trial court's ruling de novo. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d at be maintained as a class action “at an early practicable
855. When reviewing a plea to the jurisdiction in time”); TEX.R. CIV. P. 166a(c) (“Except on leave of
which the pleading requirement has been met and court, with notice to opposing counsel, the motion and
evidence has been submitted to support the plea that any supporting affidavits shall be filed and served at
implicates the merits of the case, we take as true all least twenty-one days before the time specified for
evidence favorable to the nonmovant. See Sci. Spec- hearing.”) (emphasis added); Guaranty Fed. Sav.
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 16
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, falling on Maria Miranda constitutes an allegation of a
657 (Tex.1990) (observing that the trial court has condition or use of real property and is an allegation of
broad discretion in ruling on a motion to strike inter- a premises defect.
vention, even though Rule 60 does not provide explicit
guidelines for the scheduling of a hearing or the To state a claim under the recreational use statute,
evaluation of evidence). Thus, the Texas civil proce- the Mirandas must allege sufficient facts to establish
dural scheme entrusts many scheduling and proce- that the Department was grossly negligent. See TEX.
dural issues to the sound discretion of the trial court, CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE §§ 75.002(c)-(d),
subject to appellate review. Of course, Texas practice 101.021, 101.025, 101.058. The Mirandas contend
and rules also allow the parties to request additional that both their allegations and the evidence presented
time to prepare for certain hearings or to conduct on the plea establish claims of gross negligence.
discovery upon a showing of sufficient cause, and the Looking first to the relevant factual allegations in the
court's ruling on such a motion is reviewed for an third amended petition, the Mirandas claim that (1)
abuse of discretion. See, e.g., TEX.R. CIV. P. 166a(g), they specifically asked the Department's employee for
247, 251, 252. We note, also, that federal practice does a recommendation of a safe camping location; (2) at
not prescribe a procedure for the consideration of the campsite, Maria was struck by a falling tree branch
jurisdictional evidence but instead allows the district that severely injured her; (3) the unpruned, unins-
courts to tailor a method to suit the requirements of the pected tree branches created a dangerous, defective
cases before them. Land, 330 U.S. at 735 n. 4, 67 S.Ct. condition on the premises of which the Department
1009; Moran, 27 F.3d at 172. In any event, the Mi- was aware; (4) the Department knew of the dangers of
randas do not complain that they had an inadequate its falling tree branches but failed to inspect, prune,
opportunity to conduct sufficient discovery, nor did alleviate the dangers, or otherwise make safe the
they request a continuance to do so. dangerous conditions of its trees; (5) the Department
consciously and deliberately failed to warn the Mi-
C. Waiver of Immunity Based on Premises Defects randas of the extremely dangerous condition; and (6)
1. The Mirandas' Pleadings the Department's conduct was willful, wanton, or
[24] The Mirandas contend that their pleadings grossly negligent. A liberal construction of these al-
fall within the Tort Claims Act's waiver of immunity legations, as required, demonstrates that the Mirandas
for both premises defects and injuries arising out of stated a claim against the Department for gross neg-
conditions or use of property. The Act provides that a ligence. This conclusion should not be read as a sug-
state agency is liable for injury and death caused by “a gestion that the Department has a duty to inspect every
condition or use of tangible personal or real property if tree in each of the many parks that the Department
the governmental unit would, were it a private person, manages. Instead, in this case, the Mirandas alleged
be liable to the claimant according to Texas law.” sufficient facts to survive a plea to the jurisdiction
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 101.021(2). The based solely on the pleadings.
Mirandas' pleadings allege injuries caused by a falling
tree limb, which falls under the definition of real JUSTICE JEFFERSON'S dissent contends that
property i.e., “ ‘land, and generally whatever is erected the Mirandas' third amended petition does not state a
or growing upon or affixed *230 to land.’ ” San An- claim for gross negligence because the allegations are
tonio Area Found. v. Lang, 35 S.W.3d 636, 640 conclusory and do not assert enough specific facts
(Tex.2000) (quoting Chastain v. Koonce, 700 S.W.2d alleging that the Department had “actual subjective
579, 584 (Tex.1985) (Gonzalez, J., concurring)). The awareness of the risk involved and proceeded, never-
Mirandas' allegation of an injury caused by a tree limb theless, with conscious indifference. He suggests that
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 17
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
to state a claim the Mirandas should have pled that the
Department had actual knowledge that the branch JUSTICE JEFFERSON also contends that the
would fall yet nevertheless instructed Maria to camp Mirandas are entitled to replead. As a practical matter,
beneath it.” 133 S.W.3d at 242. The pleading hurdle the Mirandas have already repled to try to cure the
he seeks to erect would be groundbreaking, indeed, “defects” that JUSTICE JEFFERSON raises. The
extending beyond current requirements under our Mirandas no doubt filed their third amended petition,
rules of civil procedure and case law. Rules 45 and 47 in which allegations of gross negligence were raised
require that the original pleadings give a short state- for the first time in this lawsuit, in response to the
ment of the cause of action sufficient to give the op- Department's plea to the jurisdiction. However, be-
posing party fair notice of the claim involved. TEX.R. cause the Mirandas' third amended petition satisfies
CIV. P. 45, 47; Paramount Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. the notice pleading requirements of our procedural
Muhr, 749 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex.1988); Castleberry rules, the Mirandas do not need, nor are they entitled
v. Goolsby Bldg. Corp., 617 S.W.2d 665, 666 to, an opportunity to replead. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 47.
(Tex.1981). Rule 45 does not require that the plaintiff
set out in his pleadings the evidence upon which he
2. The Department's Evidence
relies to establish his asserted cause of action. Muhr,
[25] The Department challenged the Mirandas'
749 S.W.2d at 494–95. While it is clear that “[t]he
pleadings and also submitted evidence to controvert
party suing the governmental entity must establish the
the factual allegations supporting jurisdiction. We
state's consent, which may be alleged either by refer-
consider the relevant evidence submitted to decide this
ence to a statute or to express legislative permission,”
jurisdictional challenge. See Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 555.
Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638, and that “[m]ere reference to
The Department attached the deposition testimony of
the Tort Claims Act does not establish the state's
Craig VanBaarle, the assistant park manager for
consent to be sued and thus is not enough to confer
Garner State Park, to its plea to the jurisdiction.
jurisdiction on the trial court,” Miller, 51 S.W.3d at
VanBaarle testified that while the park normally in-
587, the Mirandas' pleadings allege sufficient facts to
spects and maintains its trees, tree limbs are only
bring their claims under the recreational use statute
pruned or trimmed if they appear to be dead. Ac-
and the Tort Claims Act.
cording to VanBaarle, the tree limb that fell on Maria
was living. He testified that both dead and living tree
*231 Although facts alleged in a petition should limbs have fallen at various locations in the park. He
not be improperly stretched to state a claim for gross testified that the park knows that tree limbs can fall
negligence, JUSTICE JEFFERSON'S pleading stan- and have fallen on approximately twenty occasions.
dard for gross negligence would be virtually imposs- However, no one had ever been injured by falling tree
ible to meet, even when grossly negligent conduct limbs. He also testified that the tree limb that injured
occurred, absent an admission of liability. His stan- Maria Miranda fell from fifty feet above the campsite
dard requires specific factual allegations in an original and that the park employees would not have been able
petition of what the defendant knew and thought i.e., to see the limb clearly without climbing the tree even
its state of mind. His pleading hurdle would require if the limb had been dead.
discovery into the very extrinsic facts which he be-
moans consideration of in the plea to the jurisdiction.
In addition, the Department attached the affidavit
The Mirandas' third amended petition provided suffi-
of Roy B. Inks, operations and maintenance specialist
cient notice to ascertain the nature and basic issues of
at Garner State Park. Inks' responsibilities included
the controversy and the evidence that probably would
supervision of park maintenance including preserva-
be relevant.
tion and maintenance of trees at campsites. According
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 18
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
to his affidavit, Inks inspected the campsite after the failed to raise a fact question regarding the Depart-
accident. His examination of the tree and the fallen ment's alleged gross negligence. The Mirandas fall
branch failed to reveal any indication that the branch short of satisfying the requirements for the Legisla-
was dead, decaying, or in need of pruning. Inks opined ture's limited grant of a waiver of sovereign immunity
that there was no reason to conclude that the tree from suit under the applicable statutes. Therefore, the
presented a dangerous or hazardous condition. Inks trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
further opined that the branch that struck Maria “broke
away from the tree as a result of an unpredictable and 3. Dissent
unforseeable phenomenon known as ‘sudden branch In his dissent, JUSTICE BRISTER takes the view
drop syndrome.’ ” Inks explained that “[i]t would be that all pleas to jurisdiction based on immunity must
rare for anyone to be able to predict which branches take the form of two “standard” or “established” mo-
will fall and which ones will not” as a result of this tions—either special exceptions or motions for sum-
phenomenon. The Mirandas cite the Department's mary judgment. 133 S.W.3d at 239–40. This approach
evidence as proof that the Department knew about might be appropriate, if we were starting from scratch.
sudden branch drop syndrome and did nothing about Given that we are not writing on a blank slate, that
it, thus establishing gross negligence. The Mirandas pleas have been a useful procedural vehicle in Texas
did not cite any controverting evidence in their re- for over 150 years, and that use of its counterpart
sponse to the Department's plea. (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)) to chal-
lenge subject matter jurisdiction in the federal judicial
*232 We first examine this evidence to determine system when evidence is involved has been authorized
whether it establishes that the Department was grossly by every federal circuit court, the Court declines to
negligent. We have observed that with regard to the abolish by written opinion such pleas to the jurisdic-
subjective component of gross negligence, it is the tion.
defendant's state of mind whether the defendant knew
about a peril but nevertheless acted in a way that The plea to the jurisdiction was included in pro-
demonstrated that he did not care about the conse- cedural rules promulgated by this Court in 1877 and
quences that separates ordinary negligence from gross has been used as a procedural vehicle to challenge
negligence. Louisiana–Pacific, 19 S.W.3d at 246–47. subject matter jurisdiction in trial courts for over a
We search the record for evidence that the Depart- century and a half. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 85; TEX.
ment's acts or omissions demonstrate that it did not DIST. CT. R. 7, 47 Tex. 597, 617 (1877); Hosner, 1
care about the consequences to the Mirandas of a Tex. at 769. In fact, as early as 1893, Texas courts
known extreme risk of danger. The Mirandas fail to indicated that evidentiary challenges to subject matter
point to any evidence, and the record contains no jurisdiction raised in pleas to the jurisdiction should be
evidence, that shows that sudden branch drop syn- considered by trial courts. See, e.g., Gates, 291 S.W. at
drome constitutes an extreme risk of danger or that the 949; Gentry, 21 S.W. at 570. With such a long lineage,
Department had actual, subjective knowledge of that one wonders why a plea to jurisdiction does not qual-
risk but nevertheless proceeded in conscious disregard ify as a “standard” or “established” motion. Perhaps a
for the safety of others. Nor is there any evidence that second mention in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
the Department could have taken any reasonable steps would suffice.
to minimize the dangers of an “unforseeable” and
“unpredictable” phenomenon. We conclude that the
We decide that refining the rules for considering a
evidence in the record establishes that the Department
plea supported by evidence is a better approach than
was not grossly negligent and that the Mirandas have
eliminating the motion. This approach is consistent
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 19
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
with precedent, is not disruptive to civil practice going preting the premises defect provision to further limit
back more than a century, and furthers the legislative the waiver of immunity for negligent use or condition
purpose of timely adjudicating subject matter juris- of real property). Other Texas courts have recognized
diction when the immunity and liability facts are the that to allow plaintiffs to characterize premises defect
same. claims as claims caused by the negligent condition or
use of personal or real property would render the
There is a suggestion in the dissents that con- Legislature's heightened requirements for premises
firming in this opinion the authority of trial courts to defect claims meaningless. See, e.g., State v. Estate of
consider evidence in a plea to the jurisdiction is unfair Horton, 4 S.W.3d 53, 54 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999, no
to the *233 parties in this case. The facts undercut this pet.) (stating that once a claim is determined to be a
assertion. At the trial court, both parties relied on premises defect, the claimant is limited to the provi-
extrinsic evidence in briefing the plea, and both parties sions delineated by the section on premises defects
had extrinsic evidence on file with the court. Fur- and may not assert a general negligence theory); ac-
thermore, plaintiffs expressly stated in their response cord Laman v. Big Spring State Hosp., 970 S.W.2d
to the plea that they were relying on “Defendants' 670, 671–72 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet. denied);
responses to discovery requests, and upon the deposi- Univ. of Texas Pan Am. v. Valdez, 869 S.W.2d 446,
tion of Craig VanBaarle [the Department's assistant 450 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied);
park manager].” In fact, the Mirandas deposed Van- Hawley v. State Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp.,
Baarle months before the Department filed its plea. 830 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1992, no
There is good reason why Plaintiffs have not argued writ). Accordingly, we conclude that the Mirandas
unfair surprise. Given Texas precedents and the ac- have not established a cause of action under the Tort
tions of the parties, there was none. Claims Act for condition or use of tangible property
separate from their premises defect claim.
D. Waiver of Immunity Based on Condition or Use
of Tangible Property IV. Conclusion
[26] The Mirandas assert that their pleadings also Trial courts should decide dilatory pleas early at
state a cause of action for injuries resulting from a the pleading stage of litigation if possible. Here, the
condition or use of tangible property. The allegations' Legislature's mandate is not so simple. By statute,
in the Mirandas third amended petition concern only waiver of sovereign immunity for recreational use of
the Department's failure to act to reduce risks of fall- the Department's premises can only be effected by a
ing tree limbs and failure to warn the Mirandas of the showing that it acted with gross negligence. Due to the
risk of falling tree limbs. These allegations comprise standard erected (gross negligence), the determination
the elements of their premises defect claim. The Tort of whether immunity was waived may require con-
Claims Act's scheme of a limited waiver of immunity sideration of extrinsic facts after reasonable opportu-
from suit does not allow plaintiffs to circumvent the nity for targeted discovery. To preclude consideration
heightened standards of a premises defect claim con- of extrinsic facts when necessary to decide a plea to
tained in section 101.022 by re-casting the same acts the jurisdiction would require a trial on the merits for
as a claim relating to the negligent condition or use of many cases that do not need it, waste the resources of
tangible property. See State v. Tennison, 509 S.W.2d the courts and the parties in the case, and *234 involve
560, 562 (Tex.1974) (rejecting the argument that the state courts in rulings on the merits in cases over
Tort Claims Act “creates two entirely separate which they have no jurisdiction.
grounds of liability” for negligent use or condition of
real property and premise defect, but instead inter- For the reasons explained, we conclude that the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 20
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
Department established that it was not grossly negli-
gent and that the Mirandas failed to raise a fact issue Second, I cannot agree that the Mirandas' plead-
on that point. Thus, the trial court lacked subject ing has alleged sufficient facts to confer jurisdiction
matter jurisdiction over the action. The judgment of on the trial court. The Mirandas assert that the De-
the court of appeals is reversed and the Mirandas' partment was aware that branches fall from trees, but
action dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdic- consciously chose not to post warnings. Is that gross
tion. negligence? No. Texas law does not impose on lan-
downers a duty to warn trespassers about all con-
Justice JEFFERSON filed a dissenting opinion. ceivable dangers inherent in nature. What if you add
Justice BRISTER filed a dissenting opinion, in which the allegation that the Department did not inspect or
Justice O'NEILL and Justice SCHNEIDER joined. prune trees in Garner State Park? The Court today
makes clear that the Department has no duty to in-
Justice JEFFERSON, dissenting. spect trees in state parks. 133 S.W.3d 242. If there is
I dissent on two grounds. First, I do not agree that no duty, a complaint about the failure to inspect or
our precedent requires the Mirandas to produce evi- prune cannot possibly constitute a gross negligence
dence on all essential elements of their cause of action pleading sufficient to invoke the courts jurisdiction.
to establish the trial court's jurisdiction. The Court's But the Mirandas used the words “gross negligence.”
holding is inconsistent with the distinction Bland Not enough. The Mirandas pleaded no facts even
draws between requiring the plaintiff to prove pre- remotely suggesting the Department was aware the
liminary facts as a predicate to the trial court's power limb was about to fall, much less that it would injure
to entertain the merits, and requiring her to present the Maria.
merits themselves on pain of dismissal. Bland Indep.
School Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2000).FN1 I
Bland, in Proper Context
FN1. I agree that the court of appeals' holding In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, the trial
conflicts with Bland to the extent it holds that court must consider evidence “when necessary to
the trial court was prohibited from inquiring resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.” Bland, 34
into the merits because “... the Department S.W.3d at 555. That quote must be read in context. We
did not specifically allege that the Mirandas noted that when a defendant challenges an organiza-
allegations were pled merely as a sham for tion's standing to sue, the organization must present
the purpose of wrongfully obtaining juris- evidence of its nature and purpose before it can pursue
diction.” 55 S.W.3d 648, 652. Bland does not its claims—a burden that “does not involve a signifi-
require that form of defensive pleading as the cant inquiry into the substance of the claims.” Id. at
sole gateway through which the trial court 554. Similarly, we *235 observed that a challenge to
may consider evidence. If that were so, we personal jurisdiction may “touch on the merits of the
could not have held that there are limited case,” but is not aimed at “whether the defendant may
circumstances in which, even in the absence be liable as alleged.” Id. at 555. That theme—that a
of a defendant's pleading that the plaintiff's plaintiff is not required to litigate the merits to estab-
pleadings were a sham, the trial court is re- lish jurisdiction—was emphasized throughout our
quired to consider evidence. I depart from the opinion. Id. at 554. We cautioned that “the proper
Courts holding, however, that this is such a function of a dilatory plea does not authorize an in-
case. quiry so far into the substance of the claims presented
that plaintiffs are required to put on their case simply
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 21
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
to establish jurisdiction.” Id. judge to judge.
I interpret Bland to mean that if a plea to the ju- FN2. The prevailing view appears to be that
risdiction requires the trial court to wade deeply into the timeline is strictly enforced. See Luna v.
the lawsuit's merits, it is not a valid plea. Yet today the Estate of Rodriguez, 906 S.W.2d 576, 582
Court immerses itself in the merits by reaching and (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ) (“Because
deciding the ultimate issue in the case: “... the evi- summary judgment is a harsh remedy, we
dence in the record establishes that the Department strictly construe the twenty-one day time
was not grossly negligent and that the Mirandas have limit.”). Accord Burns Motors, Inc. v. Gulf
failed to raise a fact question regarding the Depart- Ins. Co., 975 S.W.2d 810, 812
ment's alleged gross negligence.” 133 S.W.3d at 221 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998) rev'd on
(emphasis added). This holding misapplies Bland other grounds, 22 S.W.3d 417 (Tex.2000);
because it permits a defendant, on painfully short Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.,
notice and before evidence has been developed, to 991 S.W.2d 1, 11 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth
force the plaintiff either to present evidence on the 1997) rev'd on other grounds, 989 S.W.2d
ultimate issue in the lawsuit, or lose the right to a jury 357 (Tex.1998); Bell v. Showa Denko K.K.,
trial on the merits. 899 S.W.2d 749, 759 (Tex.App.-Amarillo
1995, writ denied); Stephens v. Turtle Creek
The Court asserts that its standard “mirrors that of Apartments, Ltd., 875 S.W.2d 25, 27
a summary judgment....” 133 S.W.3d 228. It is a poor (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no
reflection. Our summary judgment rule, unlike the writ); Wavell v. Caller–Times Pub. Co., 809
Court's standard, contains procedural safeguards to S.W.2d 633, 637 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi
ensure that the merits are not determined before the 1991, writ denied); Williams v. City of An-
nonmovant has had an adequate time for discovery gleton, 724 S.W.2d 414, 417
and an opportunity to respond. TEX.R. CIV. P. (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ
166a(c) (“Except on leave of court, with notice to refd n.r.e.) disapproved of on other grounds,
opposing counsel, the motion and any supporting 876 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.1994).
affidavits shall be filed and served at least twenty-one
days before the time specified for hearing. Except on The Court cites a number of federal decisions
leave of court, the adverse party, not later than seven holding that when jurisdictional facts are intertwined
days prior to the day of hearing may file and serve with the merits, the trial court, in considering evi-
opposing affidavits or other written response.”); dence, should either employ the standard applicable to
166a(i) (“After adequate time for discovery, a party a summary judgment or leave the jurisdictional*236
without presenting summary judgment evidence may determination to trial. 133 S.W.3d 228; see also 2
move for summary judgment on the ground that there JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FED-
is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a ERAL PRACTICE § 12.30[3], at 12–37 to 12–38 (3d
claim or defense....)”. As a uniform rule of procedure, ed.2003). I do not disagree with that proposition, but it
the summary judgment rule leaves little to the imagi- does not answer a fundamental question. This Court
nation. A party whose claim is subject to adjudication must decide what procedure governs in Texas when a
on the merits is entitled to advance notice that it must plea to the jurisdiction is treated like a motion for
present evidence and has an adequate opportunity to summary judgment.
respond.FN2 The procedure the Court adopts today, in
contrast, will vary from county to county and from As JUSTICE BRISTER observes, no procedural
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 22
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
rule currently requires a trial court to advise the Statute
plaintiff that evidence may or must be presented in Rather than dismiss the case on the merits under a
opposition to a plea to the jurisdiction, and no rule summary judgment standard, I would examine the
requires an adequate time for discovery before the pleadings to determine whether the Mirandas alleged
court dismisses a case on the merits. 133 S.W.3d at facts sufficient to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction.
237. By default, then, trial courts will turn to Rule 21. See Tex. Ass'n Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852
TEX.R. CIV. P. 21. Presumably, if a trial court's ruling S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex.1993) (plaintiff has burden to
comports with Rule 21's minimum procedural re- allege facts affirmatively demonstrating that the trial
quirements, a dismissal on the merits will survive any court has subject matter jurisdiction). In my view, the
challenge based on an abuse of discretion standard. Mirandas' pleading falls short. Just as the Department
We should ask ourselves, then, whether the Rule's owes no duty to warn trespassers that rattlesnakes may
minimum requirements are adequate when the stakes strike, it owes no duty to advise statutory trespassers
are no less than a party's ability to present its case on that tree limbs fall in state parks. The Mirandas did not
the merits. allege that the Department had so much as an inkling
that the branch in question would fall. See TEX. CIV.
Under Rule 21, a plea to the jurisdiction may be PRAC. & REM CODE § 41.001(7); see also Transp.
served “three days before the time specified for the Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 21–22 (Tex.1994)
hearing unless otherwise provided by these rules or (explaining that gross negligence requires at a mini-
shortened by the court.” Id. The rule does not mention mum that the defendant subjectively “have actual
an adverse party's right to present opposing evidence, awareness of the extreme risk created by his or her
which may explain why the Mirandas did not con- conduct”). Rather, she alleges that the Department is
trovert the Department's plea with their own evidence. generally aware that tree limbs fall, just as it must
Compiling evidence of simple negligence on three know of countless other natural *237 perils in state
days' notice—evidence that typically requires months parks. Because the Department owes no duty to warn
of discovery—would be daunting in itself; but where, trespassers that forces of nature may cause random
as here, a plaintiff must prove gross negligence, her harm, I would hold, contrary to the Courts conclusion,
ability to contest the Department's jurisdictional plea that the Mirandas pleading does not invoke the trial
could be essentially non-existent. courts jurisdiction.
The Mirandas had no reason to suspect that a The Mirandas did not allege that the Department
summary judgment standard applied, requiring them was subjectively aware of any specific risk of injury.
to controvert the Department's evidence, because the See id. Instead, they alleged:
Department's plea to the jurisdiction was subject to
Bland. 34 S.W.3d at 554–55 (trial court not authorized Defendant knew of the dangers of its falling tree
to inquire so far into the substance of the claims pre- branches, failed to inspect, failed to prune, failed to
sented that plaintiffs are required to put on their case alleviate or remove the danger, and consciously and
simply to establish jurisdiction). At a minimum, I deliberately failed to warn Plaintiffs of the ex-
would hold that if a summary judgment standard ap- tremely dangerous condition. Plaintiffs paid a
plies, the trial court must so advise the parties and campsite rental fee and specifically asked defendant
employ Rule 166a procedures. to assign them a safe campsite. Defendant knew that
its property contained hidden, dangerous defect
II (sic) in that its tree branches which have not been
Pleading Requirements Under Recreational Use inspected or pruned regularly fall. Defendant did
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 23
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
not warn Plaintiffs of the hidden danger. in their pleadings do the Mirandas assert that the De-
partment was aware of any risk associated with either
*** the tree or the campsite below. Instead, they simply
recast allegations of simple negligence into a claim for
gross negligence.
Plaintiffs would show the court that the occurrence
made the basis of this suit and the resulting damages
set out below were a direct and proximate result of We are bound, however, to analyze their claims in
Defendants negligence and its agents, servants, and light of the policies underlying the recreational use
officers, both of commission or omission, or both statute. The statute exists to encourage landowners to
separately and collectively, in failing to properly allow the public to enjoy outdoor recreation on their
maintain and inspect the campsite where Plaintiffs property by limiting their liability for personal injury.
were injured, in failing to properly maintain the City of Bellmead v. Torres, 89 S.W.3d 611, 617
campsite in a safe condition and/or in failing to ex- (Tex.2002) (Hankinson, J. dissenting). To accomplish
ercise ordinary care to protect Plaintiffs from the that objective, the Legislature has placed stringent
danger. parameters around the duty landowners owe “tres-
passers.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM CODE §
75.002. The duty implicit in the Mirandas pleading,
The Mirandas' gross negligence allegations
however, would require*238 the Department to warn
stated:
all visitors of all perils commonly confronted by hu-
Plaintiffs would show the court that the occurrences
man interaction with nature. The scope of that pro-
made the basis of this suit and the resulting injuries
posed duty—obligating the Department to post
and damages set out below were a direct and
warnings about all naturally occurring dan-
proximate result of Defendants negligence in failing
gers—would create such an insurmountable practical
to make safe the dangerous condition of its campsite
and economic burden as to frustrate the legislatures
trees. Defendant's conduct was willful, wanton, or
intent to encourage landowners to make property
grossly negligent. Defendant failed to warn or make
available for recreational use.
reasonably safe the dangerous condition of which it
was aware and which Plaintiffs were unaware.
Without allegations that the Department was
aware that the limb would fall and nevertheless in-
We can accept as true the Mirandas' allegation
structed Maria to camp below it, the Mirandas have
that the Department knew “its tree branches which
not pleaded facts sufficient to proceed on their claim
have not been inspected or pruned regularly fall” and
under the recreational use statute. I do not mean to
did not warn them about that contingency. That
suggest that merely because the injury is alleged to
pleading, however, is of neutral value in a suit against
have resulted from a natural condition, the trial court
the Department, which would owe no duty to warn
is thereby deprived of jurisdiction. For example, the
unless it had actual knowledge that the branch would
trial courts jurisdiction would be properly invoked by
fall yet nevertheless instructed Maria to camp beneath
a pleading that the Department told the plaintiff it was
it. See id.; see also Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harri-
safe to dive into waters the Department knew were so
son, 70 S.W.3d 778, 785 (Tex.2001) (reiterating that
shallow that the dive posed a likelihood of serious
gross negligence requires that “the actor must have
injury, and that the plaintiff was severely injured di-
actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but
ving in reliance on that assurance. Here, by contrast,
nevertheless proceed in conscious indifference to the
the Mirandas did not plead that the Department di-
rights, safety, or welfare of others.”). Indeed, nowhere
rected Maria to a campsite knowing that an over-
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 24
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
hanging tree branch would likely fall on her and cause have never been placed on notice that they must cure
serious injury. the jurisdictional defect. It may well be that the facts
will not lend themselves to a pleading that would
I understand fully the Courts holding that the confer jurisdiction, but we are not equipped to make
Mirandas gave “fair notice” that they were pursuing a that determination at this stage of the proceedings.
gross negligence claim. Fair-notice pleadings, how-
ever, must be viewed in this case through the prism of III
sovereign immunity, which deprives a court of juris- Conclusion
diction unless the State has expressly waived immun- We need not and should not inquire into the ul-
ity. Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 timate merits of this case. I would *239 remand the
(Tex.1999). The plaintiffs' pleadings against the State cause to the trial court to give the Mirandas an op-
must affirmatively establish jurisdiction to overcome portunity to amend their petition to plead facts estab-
the contrary presumption. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice lishing jurisdiction.
v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Tex.2001)(quoting
Tex. Assn. Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446). The plaintiff Justice BRISTER, joined by Justice O'NEILL and
must plead facts that, if true, would establish that the Justice SCHNEIDER, dissenting.
claims come within an express waiver of sovereign The Legislature has provided that state park vis-
immunity before the trial court has jurisdiction to itors are owed the same duty of care as trespassers; FN1
proceed. Just as mere reference to the Texas Tort thus, the plaintiffs in this case had to prove the Parks
Claims Act is insufficient to confer jurisdiction, Mil- and Wildlife Department caused deliberate, wilful, or
ler, 51 S.W.3d at 587, the trial court's jurisdiction is malicious injury.FN2 All members of the Court agree
not satisfied by mere notice that the plaintiff is pur- that either their petition or their summary judgment
suing a gross negligence claim. The Mirandas have evidence fails to do so, though we disagree which.
failed to affirmatively establish the court's jurisdiction
because, even if all of the facts alleged in their
FN1. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE §§
pleading were true, those facts would not amount to
75.002(c)(2), 75.003(g).
gross negligence and therefore would not establish a
waiver of sovereign immunity under the recreational
FN2. Id. §§ 75.002(a)(2), 75.003, 101.022,
use statute.
101.058.
When a plaintiff fails to plead facts establishing
The Mirandas alleged Maria suffered severe in-
jurisdiction, the issue is ordinarily one of pleading
juries caused by the Department's gross negligence;
sufficiency and the plaintiff should be afforded the
specifically, they alleged the Department knew tree
opportunity to amend. County of Cameron v. Brown,
limbs could fall, and failed to warn them of that fact or
80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex.2002). A court may grant a
assign them a campsite where none would. I have
plea to the jurisdiction without affording an opportu-
grave doubts whether such facts could possibly con-
nity to amend only when the pleadings “affirmatively
stitute gross negligence—natural conditions usually
negate” the existence of jurisdiction, a circumstance
cannot be unreasonably dangerous (much less wan-
not presented here. Id. In this case, however, the trial
ton),FN3 and trespassers do not have to be warned of
court overruled the Departments plea to the jurisdic-
what everyone should know.FN4 Nor does the Parks
tion, concluding implicitly that the Mirandas plead-
Department appear to have a duty to provide camp-
ings were sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and the
sites safely away from trees; FN5 indeed, one has to ask
court of appeals affirmed. Consequently, the Mirandas
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 25
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
whether anyone would want to use such “parks” if it
did.FN6 FN7. The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIO-
NARY (1989) defines “white elephant” as:
FN3. See Johnson County Sheriff's Posse,
Inc. v. Endsley, 926 S.W.2d 284, 287 a. A rare albino variety of elephant which
(Tex.1996) (holding rock in dirt arena did not is highly venerated in some Asian coun-
create unreasonably dangerous condition). tries. b. fig. A burdensome or costly pos-
session (from the story that the kings of
FN4. Cf. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 Siam were accustomed to make a present
S.W.3d 549, 558 (Tex.2002) (holding dark- of one of these animals to courtiers who
ness caused by failed streetlights was not had rendered themselves obnoxious, in
open and obvious hazard precluding recovery order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its
by licensee because it could not be seen from maintenance). Also, an object, scheme,
entrance to causeway). etc., considered to be without use or value.
FN5. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE Pleas to the jurisdiction are nothing new. In his
§ 75.002(c)(1) (providing landowners who Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone
grant permission for recreational use do not lists them as a category of dilatory pleas that (along
assure that the premises are safe for that with pleas of disability and abatement) deny the *240
purpose). propriety of the remedy rather than the injury.FN8 One
hundred years ago, this Court addressed a variety of
FN6. See Tex. Home Mgmt., Inc. v. Peavy, 89 matters as pleas to the jurisdiction, including objec-
S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.2002) (holding question tions based on personal jurisdiction,FN9 subject-matter
of legal duty is question of law requiring jurisdiction,FN10 dominant jurisdiction,FN11 venue,FN12
balance of factors such as risk, utility, con- capacity,FN13 and conflict of laws.FN14
sequences of the duty, and other relevant in-
dividual and social interests). FN8. 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF
Faced with what appears to be an insupportable ENGLAND 301–03 (1768).
allegation like the gross-negligence pleading here,
litigants normally have two options: (1) demand more FN9. See, e.g., Rice v. Peteet, 66 Tex. 568, 1
specific facts by special exception, or (2) demand S.W. 657, 657 (1886).
more specific facts by motion for summary judgment.
Instead, the Department filed three motions, including FN10. See, e.g., McIlhenny Co. v. Todd, 71
a “plea to the jurisdiction”—the white elephant FN7 of Tex. 400, 9 S.W. 445, 446 (1888) (objecting
current Texas motion practice. By use of this plea, the that amount at issue fell below court's juris-
Department was able to force the trial judge (and dictional limits); Juneman v. Franklin, 67
ultimately this Court) to make an ad hoc decision Tex. 411, 3 S.W. 562, 562 (1887) (objecting
whether our jurisdiction should be determined by that forcible entry and detainer action was
reference to pleadings or evidence. Because it should not filed in justice court).
be litigants rather than judges making that choice, I
respectfully dissent.
FN11. See, e.g., Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Tex.
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 26
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
1, 285 S.W. 1063, 1072 (1926), disapproved any other matter, with affidavits served seven
on other grounds, Walker v. Packer, 827 days before the hearing).
S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex.1992); Grathaus v.
Witte, 72 Tex. 124, 11 S.W. 1032, 1032 Case law as well as rule amendments have con-
(1888). tributed to the trend away from the common-law plea
to the jurisdiction. For example, we have held that a
FN12. See, e.g., Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. complaint based on dominant jurisdiction in another
Thompson, 106 Tex. 456, 167 S.W. 801, 801 court must be raised by plea in abatement in the
(1914); Baines v. Jemison, 86 Tex. 118, 23 second court, or it is waived.FN17 Again, though this
S.W. 639, 640 (1893); Watson v. Baker, 67 complaint could be characterized as a plea to the ju-
Tex. 48, 2 S.W. 375, 375–76 (1886). risdiction, a more specific motion and procedure has
rendered the common-law term obsolete.
FN13. See, e.g., Brown v. Gay, 76 Tex. 444,
13 S.W. 472, 472–73 (1890). FN17. Mower v. Boyer, 811 S.W.2d 560, 563
n. 2 (Tex.1991); Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing
FN14. See, e.g., Tex. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ri- Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex.1988).
chards, 68 Tex. 375, 4 S.W. 627, 629 (1887).
But pleas to the jurisdiction have enjoyed a recent
Since then, there has been a steady shift away resurgence in the field of governmental immunity. For
from the common-law forms of pleading to the more many years, governmental units were not very partic-
specific motion practice set out in the rules of civil ular about the vehicle for asserting immunity, raising
procedure. For example, a defendant objecting to it sometimes by—
venue today must file a motion to transfer that com-
plies with the form requirements of Rule 86 and the • general demurrer; FN18
deadlines of Rule 87.FN15 Similarly, a nonresident
objecting to personal jurisdiction must file a special FN18. See, e.g., State v. Hale, 136 Tex. 29,
appearance that meets the requirements of Rule 146 S.W.2d 731, 735 (1941); Herring v.
120a.FN16 In substance, these motions could still be Houston Nat'l Exch. Bank, 113 Tex. 264, 253
categorized as “pleas to the jurisdiction;” but in form, S.W. 813, 814 (1923); Stephens v. Tex. & P.
they must comply with the current rules of civil pro- Ry. Co., 100 Tex. 177, 97 S.W. 309, 310
cedure. (1906); Thomson v. Baker, 90 Tex. 163, 38
S.W. 21, 22 (1896).
FN15. TEX.R. CIV. PROC. 86 (requiring
unverified motion that is filed first and states • special demurrer; FN19
counties of improper, proper, or mandatory
venue); TEX.R. CIV. PROC. 87 (requiring
FN19. See, e.g., Thomson, 38 S.W. at 22.
45–days' notice of hearing, 30–days' notice
of respondents affidavits, and 7–days' notice
*241 • special exception; FN20
of movants affidavits).
FN20. See, e.g., Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d
FN16. TEX.R. CIV. PROC. 120a (requiring
740, 741 (Tex.1980); Dir. of Dep't of Agric.
sworn motion that is filed and heard before
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 27
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
& Env't v. Printing Indus. Ass'n of Tex., 600 construed, as it is an exception to the general rule that
S.W.2d 264, 265 (Tex.1980); Stephens, 97 interlocutory orders are not appealable.FN25
S.W. at 310.
FN24. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE §
• plea to the jurisdiction; FN21 51.014(a)(8).
FN21. See, e.g., Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., FN25. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson,
951 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex.1997), superseded 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.2001).
by statute on other grounds as stated in Gen.
Servs. Comm'n v. Little–Tex Insulation Co., As a result, almost overnight a “plea to the juris-
Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591, 593 (Tex.2001); Lowe diction” became the motion of choice for asserting
v. Tex. Tech Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 immunity; FN26 indeed, some appellate courts have
(Tex.1976); State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549, 349 refused to consider any other.FN27 This development
S.W.2d 579, 580 (1961); Griffin v. Hawn, exalts form over substance. For example, before the
161 Tex. 422, 341 S.W.2d 151, 152 (1960); Legislature's amendment, one governmental entity
Short v. W.T. Carter & Bro., 133 Tex. 202, unsuccessfully asserted immunity by means of a
126 S.W.2d 953, 955 (1938). summary judgment and special exceptions; imme-
diately after the effective date, the entity filed the same
• plea in abatement; FN22 or objection as a “plea to jurisdiction”—and prevailed.
FN28
FN22. See, e.g., Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d
740, 741 (Tex.1980); Lowe, 540 S.W.2d at FN26. See, e.g., Texas Natural Res. Con-
298; Griffin v. Hawn, 161 Tex. 422, 341 servation Comm'n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d
S.W.2d 151, 152 (1960); W.D. Haden Co. v. 849, 852 (Tex.2002); Little–Tex Insulation
Dodgen, 158 Tex. 74, 308 S.W.2d 838, 838 Co., Inc., 39 S.W.3d at 594; McClain v. Univ.
(1958); Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, of Tex. Health Ctr. at Tyler, 119 S.W.3d 4, 5
190 S.W.2d 709, 710 (1945); Short v. W.T. (Tex.App.-Tyler 2000, pet. denied); Dallas
Carter & Bro., 133 Tex. 202, 126 S.W.2d County Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Bolton, 990
953, 955 (1938). S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no
pet.); Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Obayashi
• summary judgment.FN23 Corp., 980 S.W.2d 745, 746 (Tex.App.-San
Antonio 1998, pet. denied); Tex. Parks &
Wildlife Dept. v. Garrett Place, Inc., 972
FN23. See, e.g., Overton Mem'l Hosp. v.
S.W.2d 140, 142 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no
McGuire, 518 S.W.2d 528, 528 (Tex.1975)
pet.); Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Calla-
(per curiam); Tex. Dept. of Corr. v. Herring,
way, 971 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Tex.App.-Austin
513 S.W.2d 6, 7 (Tex.1974).
1998, no pet.).
In 1997, the Legislature amended the Civil Prac-
FN27. See, e.g., Thomas v. Long, 97 S.W.3d
tices and Remedies Code to allow interlocutory ap-
300, 302–03 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]
peals “from an interlocutory order ... [that] grants or
2003, pet. granted) (refusing interlocutory
denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental
appeal of denial of summary judgment based
unit.” FN24 We have held this section must be strictly
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 28
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
on lack of subject matter jurisdiction as no
order granted or denied a plea to the juris- In Bland Independent School District v. Blue,FN30
diction); Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Tate, 77 we attempted to bring some order to this resurgence by
S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st setting guidelines for handling such pleas. But due to
Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (refusing interlocutory the broad range of issues a plea to the jurisdiction
appeal because trial court's order was sum- might address, that was not easy to do. As we pointed
mary judgment based on immunity from lia- out in several examples, consideration of some pleas
bility rather than plea to the jurisdiction should not go beyond the pleadings, but consideration
based on immunity from suit). of others must.FN31 When necessary, trial courts must
consider evidence relating to the jurisdictional facts,
FN28. Lamar Univ. v. Doe, 971 S.W.2d 191, but should not consider evidence relating to the me-
193 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, no pet.). rits,FN32 even though the two are sometimes the same.
Nor could we be specific about when pleas should be
For several reasons, we should put a stop to this decided, leaving it to the trial court's discretion
resurgence of common-law pleadings in immunity whether to address the issue at a preliminary hearing
cases. First, it is fraught with uncertainty. Despite or after fuller development of the merits.FN33
hundreds of haphazardly-numbered rules, only once
do the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure mention pleas FN30. 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2000).
to the jurisdiction, and then only in a rule regarding
permissible parts of an answer rather than permissible FN31. Id. at 555.
motions.*242 FN29 There is no rule—no case and no
code—that specifies the form, deadlines, or eviden-
FN32. Id.
tiary requirements for pleas to the jurisdiction gener-
ally.
FN33. Id. at 554.
FN29. TEX.R. CIV. PROC. 85:
The examples given in Bland certainly provided
more procedural guidance than existed before. But
The original answer may consist of mo-
without considering all possible pleas to the jurisdic-
tions to transfer venue, pleas to the juris-
tion, we could not prescribe more definitive rules;
diction, in abatement, or any other dilatory
until all those disputes come before us, we should
pleas; of special exceptions, of general
probably not try. In the meantime, it will often be
denial, and any defense by way of avoid-
unclear what the trial court should consider, or when it
ance or estoppel, and it may present a
should do so, until the plea is decided (or perhaps even
cross-action, which to that extent will
later on appeal). To some observers, this may appear
place defendant in the attitude of a plain-
to be drawing up the rules after the game has been
tiff. Matters in avoidance and estoppel may
played.FN34
be stated together, or in several special
pleas, each presenting a distinct defense,
FN34. See id. at 555 (rejecting plaintiffs'
and numbered so as to admit of separate
demand for remand for full evidentiary
issues to be formed on them.
hearing because they did not contest evi-
dence at original plea to the jurisdiction
(Emphasis added).
hearing).
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 29
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
“motion to dismiss” when it was reversed).
From almost any vantage point, the resurgence of
pleas to the jurisdiction creates problems in immunity For plaintiffs, the problems created by the resur-
cases. For governmental entities, it results in unne- gence of pleas to the jurisdiction are even more acute.
cessary repetition. In this case, the Parks and Wildlife Defendants uncertain about how to present an im-
Department could not be sure whether the trial court munity defense can simply try a little of everything;
would consider evidence necessary, so it filed three plaintiffs, by contrast, may lose their case if they guess
motions—a no-evidence motion for summary judg- wrong. In this case, for example, the Mirandas did not
ment, a traditional motion for summary judgment, and attach any evidence to their responses to the various
a plea to the jurisdiction. But as counsel for the De- motions. The lower courts agreed they did not need to,
partment admitted at the hearing, “all three relate to but if we hold otherwise, then the Mirandas will learn
the same set of issues.” three years too late that they should have presented
evidence at the jurisdictional hearing.
Such repetition is unnecessary for interlocutory
review. Nothing in the Civil Practice and Remedies From a trial judge's vantage point, pleas to the
Code suggests the Legislature intended to specify a jurisdiction create uncertainty, not just about the rules
form motions had to take for that purpose, rather than to be applied but about the role of the judge. This case
their substance. Indeed, the opposite is suggested by is one of many in which immunity from suit under the
the Legislature's selection of a common-law term Texas Tort Claims Act is coextensive with immunity
applicable to a broad category of motions, rather than from liability.FN36 As a result, deciding the jurisdic-
a term pointing to any particular motion in the current tional question bears a strong resemblance to deciding
rules of civil procedure. It has long been our practice the merits.
to consider the substance of motions rather than their
form; FN35 nothing in the legislative history *243 FN36. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
suggests the interlocutory appeal statute was intended REM.CODE § 101.025(a) (waiving immun-
to be an exception to that rule. ity to suit to the extent of liability under
chapter 101), § 101.021 (creating govern-
FN35. See, e.g., Speer v. Stover, 685 S.W.2d mental liability for specified acts resulting
22, 23 (Tex.1985) (per curiam) (considering from negligence, premises conditions, and
plea to jurisdiction even though misnamed use of property to the extent private persons
plea in abatement); see also TEX.R. CIV. would be liable).
PROC. 71 (stating “[w]hen a party has mis-
takenly designated any plea or pleading, the In these circumstances, it is difficult for Texas
court, if justice so requires, shall treat the judges to detect the line between jurisdictional ques-
plea or pleading as if it had been properly tions they must decide before going further and lia-
designated”). Some courts themselves appear bility questions they cannot decide without usurping
to use the possible terms for immunity mo- the function of the jury. Here, the Mirandas convinced
tions interchangeably. See, e.g., State v. Ex- the lower courts that whether their pleadings were
ecutive Condos., Inc., 673 S.W.2d 330, supported by any evidence was a question solely for
331–32 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1984, writ the jury. But that is not true if they raised no material
refused n.r.e.) (referring to immunity motion facts that could establish a waiver of immunity.FN37
as “plea to the jurisdiction” when it was filed,
“plea in abatement” when it was denied, and
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 30
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
FN37. See TEX.R. CIV. PROC. 166a(c).
FN40. See, e.g., Dallas Area Rapid Transit v.
By contrast, returning to standard motions as the Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.2003)
vehicles for asserting governmental immunity would (sovereign immunity asserted by plea to the
clarify what the jurisdictional hearing will be like and jurisdiction and motion for summary judg-
simplify many procedural questions. For decades, ment); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80
governmental units have asserted immunity by special S.W.3d 549, 553 (Tex.2002) (sovereign
exceptions FN38 or motions for summary judgment.FN39 immunity asserted by plea to the jurisdiction
In many cases (including this one), they still do so and special exceptions).
today.FN40 Relying on standard procedural *244 mo-
tions would eliminate many questions about dead- FN41. See, e.g., Tex. Dep't of Corr. v. Her-
lines, forms, and evidence. It would make government ring, 513 S.W.2d 6, 9–10 (Tex.1974) (re-
entities rather than trial judges decide whether the versing summary judgment based on im-
jurisdictional challenge is directed to the plaintiff's munity as plaintiff was not allowed oppor-
pleadings or the underlying facts. If a governmental tunity to replead).
unit chooses wrong,FN41 it may always try again. But
the plaintiff is not required to guess what rules or
Returning to pre-resurgence practice would not
procedures the trial judge might apply.
change the incidence of governmental immunity. As
we recently held, if a plea to the jurisdiction is directed
FN38. See, e.g., John G. & Marie Stella only to the plaintiff's pleadings, we construe them in
Kenedy Mem'l Found. v. Mauro, 921 S.W.2d the plaintiff's favor and allow an opportunity to amend
278, 281 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, unless they affirmatively negate jurisdiction.FN42 This
writ denied); Tex. Dep't of Corr. v. Winters, is, of course, identical to the rules governing special
765 S.W.2d 531, 532 (Tex.App.-Beaumont exceptions.FN43 And when governmental entities wish
1989, writ denied); Martine v. Bd. of Re- to rely on evidence, any questions of fact that affect
gents, State Senior Colleges of Tex., 578 jurisdictional issues must be settled by the jury,FN44 the
S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979, same standard that applies to summary judgments.
no writ); Harrison v. Bunnell, 420 S.W.2d
777, 778 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1967, no
FN42. Cameron, 80 S.W.3d at 555; Tex.
writ); State v. McDonald, 220 S.W.2d 732,
Dep't of Transp. v. Ramirez, 74 S.W.3d 864,
732 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1949, writ
867 (Tex.2002).
refused); Porter v. Langley, 155 S.W. 1042,
1043 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1913, writ re-
FN43. See Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 559; Her-
fused).
ring, 513 S.W.2d at 9–10.
FN39. See, e.g., Ho v. Univ. of Tex. at Ar-
FN44. See, e.g., Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 556
lington, 984 S.W.2d 672, 681–83
(holding foreseeability issue raised by plea to
(Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. denied);
the jurisdiction presented fact question for
Russell v. Tex. Dep't of Human Res., 746
jury).
S.W.2d 510, 513 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1988,
writ denied); Gay v. State, 730 S.W.2d 154,
159 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1987, no writ). Nor can it be argued that courts exceed their ju-
risdiction by requiring immunity pleas to be brought
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 31
133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
(Cite as: 133 S.W.3d 217)
in standard motions according to settled rules of pro- used to raise such issues.FN47 We should stop making
cedure. As we stated shortly after the rules of civil the assumption*245 that the Legislature intended
procedure were enacted: something different for pleas of governmental im-
munity.
Since [the trial court] had the power to sustain the
demurrers and grant the motions, it had the power to FN47. See Baker v. Monsanto Co., 111
overrule them. The jurisdiction of a court must be S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex.2003) (per curiam)
determined, not upon the court's action in deciding (asserting limitations by summary judg-
the questions presented in a case, but upon the ment); City of Port Arthur v. Tillman, 398
character of the case itself. Jurisdiction is the power S.W.2d 750, 751 (Tex.1965) (asserting li-
to decide, and not merely the power to decide cor- mitations by special exception).
rectly.FN45
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for (1)
FN45. Martin v. Sheppard, 145 Tex. 639, the Parks and Wildlife Department to specify whether
201 S.W.2d 810, 812–13 (1947). its plea to the jurisdiction is a challenge to the plead-
ings (by special exception) or the evidence (by sum-
Of course, returning to established procedural mary judgment), (2) the Mirandas to respond in com-
motions will not remove all difficulties with issues of pliance with the rules of civil procedure, and (3) the
governmental immunity. Judges of goodwill and in- lower courts to address the governmental immunity
tellect will still disagree about whether a particular issue in accordance with the usual rules governing
pleading is sufficiently specific, as JUSTICES JEF- disposition and review of those motions.
FERSON and WAINWRIGHT do here. Governmen-
tal units may incur unnecessary discovery costs and Tex.,2004.
delays unless judges agree to hear summary judgment Texas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda
motions on jurisdictional matters as early in the case 133 S.W.3d 217, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 386
as they might hear a plea to the jurisdiction. And ap-
pellate courts must still distinguish between immunity END OF DOCUMENT
from suit (as to which an interlocutory appeal will lie)
and immunity from liability (as to which it will
not).FN46 But simplification of our procedures should
not be rejected because we cannot simplify every-
thing.
FN46. See Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8
S.W.3d 636, 638–39 (Tex.1999).
If the Texas Legislature mandated interlocutory
review of “pleas in bar asserting limitations” (a de-
velopment devoutly to be wished against), few would
suggest such review was available only for motions
entitled “Plea in Bar” instead of the summary judg-
ment or special exception forms that have long been
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.