City of San Antonio v. Roxana Tenorio, Individually and on Behalf of Pedro Tenorio
04-15-00259-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 24, 2015Background
- On Sept. 2, 2012 a motorcycle operated by Pedro Tenorio (with Roxana Tenorio as passenger) was struck head‑on by Benito Garza, who was driving on the wrong side of Loop 410 while fleeing police.
- Tenorio sued the City of San Antonio under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), alleging SAPD negligently initiated and failed to terminate the pursuit, causing injuries and death.
- Tenorio did not provide written notice to the City within 90 days under the City Charter or within 6 months under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.101(a).
- Plaintiff contended the City had "actual notice" via the TXDOT crash report, witness statements, and the SAPD incident report.
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting preserved governmental immunity because formal notice was not given and the City lacked subjective awareness of fault.
- The trial court denied the City’s plea; the City appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s failure to give formal statutory/charter notice bars suit | Tenorio admits she did not give formal notice but contends formal notice is excused because the City had actual notice | City says formal notice is jurisdictional and was not given, so immunity bars suit | Trial court denied plea; appellate briefing argues denial was error (City seeks dismissal) |
| What constitutes "actual notice" under §101.101(c) | Tenorio argues the crash report, witness statements, and SAPD report supplied actual notice | City argues those documents do not show the City’s subjective awareness of fault — they only report facts and suspect Garza’s fleeing | Court of appeals briefing relies on Texas Supreme Court precedent that actual notice requires subjective awareness of the governmental unit’s fault (not mere investigation or facts) |
| Whether the TXDOT crash report or police materials supplied subjective awareness of City fault | Tenorio: crash report and police materials show facts that should put City on notice of potential fault | City: reports attribute cause to fleeing driver and contain no allegation that City or its employees caused or contributed to the crash; investigation alone is insufficient | Under governing precedent a police/crash report that does not state City fault does not establish actual notice; City asserts it conclusively disproved actual notice |
| Whether governmental immunity remains when actual notice is absent | Tenorio contends City had actual notice so immunity waived | City contends it retained immunity because it lacked subjective awareness of fault | City argues immunity remains and the case must be dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to the jurisdiction and burden to show jurisdictional facts)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (court may consider evidence when resolving a plea to the jurisdiction)
- City of Dallas v. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. 2010) (police/crash report that does not identify city fault does not establish actual notice)
- Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (actual notice requires subjective awareness of the governmental unit’s fault)
- Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (actual notice requires knowledge of injury, identity, and alleged governmental fault)
- City of Houston v. Torres, 621 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. 1981) (charter notice requirements are mandatory and are conditions precedent)