City of Houston v. Jesus Roman, Individually and as Next Friend of G.R., a Minor, 01-15-01042-CV

G.R., a minor, was bitten by a Houston Police Department K-9 (Jake) while fleeing officers; the bite lacerated an artery and required surgery.
Roman sued the City of Houston on G.R.’s behalf, alleging negligence by the officers handling the dog.
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA).
The City argued the claim was an intentional tort (excluded from TTCA waiver) or involved non-use of property (also outside the TTCA waiver).
Evidence presented on the plea was mixed as to whether the officer intentionally directed Jake to attack or negligently failed to control the dog during the search.
The trial court denied the City’s plea; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Roman’s claim falls within the TTCA waiver for negligent use of tangible personal property (the dog).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether G.R.’s injury arises from an intentional tort (no waiver) or negligence (waiver)	Roman: claim sounds in negligence for failure to control the dog	City: deploying and controlling the dog was intentional conduct, so intentional-tort exception applies	Held negligent-use theory survives: evidence supports negligence; intentional-tort exception does not defeat jurisdiction now
Whether the injury was caused by a “use” of tangible personal property under TTCA §101.021(2)	Roman: the dog was used to assist the officer’s duties — therefore a ‘‘use’’ of property waives immunity	City: failure to leash equates to non-use; non-use is not covered by TTCA	Held the dog’s deployment/assistance in the search constitutes a “use” of property; TTCA waiver applies

Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (governs subject-matter jurisdiction and governmental immunity)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction)
San Antonio State Hosp. v. Cowan, 128 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2004) (definition of “use” under TTCA)
Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. 2001) (interpreting ‘‘use’’ of property)
City of Houston v. Davis, 294 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (police dog’s deployment can be a ‘‘use’’ of property under the TTCA)
City of Houston v. Jenkins, 363 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (officer liability for negligent handling of an animal)
City of Garland v. Rivera, 146 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (use of police dog to subdue suspect held an intentional battery in different facts)