City of Houston v. San Juan Rodriguez Individually and as Next Friend of Juan Rodriguez, 371 S.W.3d 492

Rodriguez sued the City of Houston and a City employee, Estrada, for injuries from a rear‑end collision alleging negligence within the City’s course and scope of employment.
The City answered asserting governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and nonliability for acts of its employee.
The trial court dismissed Estrada from the suit and later the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that Rodriguez’s suit against both entities perfected immunity and barred all claims.
The trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.
The issue centers on whether §101.106’s election of remedies bars Rodriguez’s immunity‑waived tort claims against the City when she also sues the City’s employee for the same subject matter.
The court affirms, holding that subsection (b) does not bar the plaintiff’s common‑law tort claims against the City and that dismissal under (e) is not required here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TTCA §101.106(b) bars claims against the City when the plaintiff sues both the City and its employee.	Rodriguez argues she asserted immunity‑waived tort claims against the City that survive (b) when both were sued.	City contends §101.106(b) bars the suit against the City unless the City consents.	§101.106(b) does not bar Rodriguez’s claims against the City; judgment affirmed.

Mission Consolidated Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex.2008) (discusses scope of election‑of‑remedies under TTCA)
City of Houston v. Esparza, 369 S.W.3d 238 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (controlling interpretation of §101.106(e) and (b))
City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex.2008) (statutory construction principles in TTCA)