City of Fort Worth, Texas v. Mary Deal
02-17-00413-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- On Feb. 7, 2013, Fort Worth officers pursued Jakob Lange after he ran a red light and led a high‑speed chase; Lange lost control, struck a tree, and died.
- Plaintiff Mary Deal sued the City of Fort Worth in state court alleging an unknown officer deployed a tire deflation device (TDD) that caused the crash.
- Plaintiff originally pleaded negligence (including negligent deployment, training, supervision, entrustment); federal claims were dismissed and state claims remanded.
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing Deal’s TDD allegations allege an intentional tort (battery/arrest) and thus sovereign immunity is not waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA).
- Trial court granted the plea as to negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, and negligent training, but denied the plea as to intentional‑tort claims and official immunity; the City appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deployment of a TDD is an intentional tort that preserves governmental immunity | Deal frames the claim as negligent deployment (no intent to injure); challenges City policy/compliance | City says deploying a TDD is an intentional act (akin to using a Taser/firearm or effecting an arrest) and thus falls within TTCA's intentional‑tort exception, preserving immunity | Trial court: denied the plea on intentional‑tort/official‑immunity grounds (City appealed); plea granted on negligent training/supervision/entrustment claims |
| Whether pleading intentional‑tort facts in negligence clothing bars TTCA waiver | Deal argues lack of intent to injure supports negligence claim | City argues courts treat claims based on intentional acts as intentional torts even if pled as negligence | Trial court concluded pleadings did not establish intentional tort for purposes of plea (denial) |
| Whether TDD deployment constitutes battery (offensive touching) under Texas law | Deal contends intent was to stop vehicle, not to injure; thus not a battery | City contends TDD contact with tire is a nonconsensual touching (battery) that does not require intent to injure | City argued battery doctrine applies; trial court denied plea on this issue (appeal seeks reversal) |
| Scope of TTCA waivers and exceptions relevant to vehicle/motor equipment use | Deal invokes TTCA waiver for motor‑vehicle claims | City points to §101.057 excluding assault, battery, and other intentional torts from TTCA waiver | Trial court sustained some waivers (denied dismissal on intentional tort issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Independent School Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (plea to jurisdiction purpose and procedure)
- City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2014) (battery defined for TTCA intentional‑tort exception; offensive contact suffices)
- Tex. Dep’t of Public Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2001) (intent to commit act that causes injury can make a claim an intentional tort despite negligence framing)
- Pineda v. City of Houston, 175 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (use of force/shooting treated as intentional tort despite negligence label)
- City of Amarillo v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1998) (municipal immunity principles)
- Mo. Pac. R.R. v. Brownsville Navigation Dist., 453 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1970) (statutory consent to suit required to overcome governmental immunity)