City of Houston v. Vallejo
371 S.W.3d 499
Tex. App.2012Background
- Vallejo alleges personal injuries from a car collision involving a City vehicle driven by City employee Anderson, with claims of negligence and agency liability.
- Vallejo asserts the City is liable under respondeat superior and also alleges negligent entrustment and brake failure.
- Vallejo filed suit against both the City and Anderson; Anderson was later non-suited, and the trial court dismissed Vallejo’s claims against him without prejudice.
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing Vallejo’s simultaneous claims against City and Anderson trigger §101.106’s election-of-remedies, barring further relief against the City.
- The trial court denied the City’s plea; the issue on appeal is whether §101.106(b) bars Vallejo’s common-law tort claims against the City when both are sued.
- The court ultimately held that §101.106(b) does not bar Vallejo’s common-law tort claims against the City, directing that the City’s plea be denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §101.106(b) bar Vallejo’s suit against the City when she also sued an employee for the same subject matter? | Vallejo (Vallejo) argues not barred; election applies only to waivers and that remedies remain available. | City argues Vallejo is immediately and forever barred from relief against the City when sued with the employee. | No; §101.106(b) does not bar Vallejo’s claims against the City. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (executes the scope and application of election-of-remedies)
- City of Esparza v. Esparza, 369 S.W.3d 238 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (supports interpretation that 101.106(b) may not bar mixed claims)
- City of Houston v. Rodriguez, 371 S.W.3d 492 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (concurring discussion on application of 101.106 to similar situations)