Carlos Green and Pamela Green v. City of DeSoto
05-23-00740-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 9, 2024Background
- Carlos and Pamela Green sued the City of DeSoto, alleging that the City’s use of motor-driven equipment to repair a sewer line caused flood damage to their home after heavy rain in June 2021.
- The City’s equipment created a "dirt dam" in an alley drainage channel behind the Greens’ home, diverting water onto their property and causing significant property damage.
- The Greens claimed that the City’s actions constituted negligence under section 101.021 of the Texas Tort Claims Act, arguing immunity was waived for damages arising from use of motor-driven equipment.
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing their immunity was not waived, as the equipment only created the condition that allowed the flooding—not the flooding itself.
- The trial court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the Greens’ case with prejudice; their motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal, the Greens argued that binding precedent (Dallas, Garland), which required a closer nexus between equipment use and damages, was wrongly decided, and that a Texas Supreme Court case (PHI, Inc.) called for a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of Immunity Under §101.021 | City’s equipment caused flooding, so immunity is waived | Equipment only created a condition enabling flooding | Immunity not waived; use furnished condition only |
| Nexus Requirement (Dallas, Garland) | Precedent wrongly decided, imposes extra-statutory hurdles | Precedent controls; no direct causation proven | Precedent followed; direct causation is required |
| Application of PHI, Inc. v. TJJD | Later damage can still "arise from" equipment use | PHI, Inc. is distinguishable; direct result required | PHI, Inc. does not change outcome; no waiver |
| Active Operation Requirement | Damage need not occur during active use | No active connection between operation and damage | Lack of immediate, direct causal link is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad v. Hunt County, 195 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (held that governmental immunity is not waived when equipment use merely furnishes the condition for injury, without direct causation)
- Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003) (requires a direct nexus between equipment use and injury for immunity waiver)
- PHI, Inc. v. Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 593 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2019) (discusses operation of a vehicle in the context of sovereign immunity, but requires actual causation for waiver)