City of San Antonio v. Tenorio ex rel. Tenorio, 543 S.W.3d 772

On Sept. 21, 2012 a southbound vehicle driven by Benito Garza drove the wrong way on Loop 410 and collided head-on with a northbound motorcycle carrying Pedro and Roxana Tenorio; Pedro died and Roxana was severely injured.
SAPD officers had been pursuing Garza earlier on suspicion of an armed robbery but broadcast an order to terminate the pursuit when Garza entered the Loop against traffic; witnesses corroborated officers stopped pursuing once Garza entered the ramp.
Tenorio sued Garza and the City of San Antonio, alleging negligent pursuit by SAPD and asserting the City's immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA); she relied on the crash report (which listed "Fleeing or Evading Police" as a contributing factor), witness statements, and the case report.
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing Tenorio failed to provide statutory or charter notice and that the City lacked "actual notice" under the TTCA; the City submitted officer affidavits and multiple witness statements showing the pursuit was terminated before the collision.
The trial court denied the plea; the court of appeals affirmed, finding a fact issue whether the City had actual notice; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City had "actual notice" under TTCA §101.101(c) so written notice is excused	Tenorio: crash report listing "Fleeing or Evading Police," witness statements, and case report create a fact issue that SAPD was subjectively aware it "played a role" and thus had actual notice	City: actual notice requires subjective awareness that the governmental unit's fault produced or contributed to the injury; the report listing "fleeing" does not show SAPD believed its conduct was at fault and officer affidavits show pursuit was terminated	Held for City: actual notice not shown; crash report alone does not demonstrate subjective awareness of the City's fault, so TTCA immunity not waived and court lacked jurisdiction
Proper legal standard for "actual notice" under Cathey/Simons	Tenorio: court of appeals used correct, broader standard (awareness of "role" or responsibility short of conceded fault)	City: correct standard is subjective awareness that some fault by the governmental unit produced or contributed to the injury (not mere awareness of a role)	Held: Court adopts City's narrower standard—actual notice requires subjective awareness of the governmental unit's fault as alleged by claimant

Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (actual-notice exception requires knowledge of death/injury, identity, and the governmental unit's alleged fault producing or contributing to the harm)
Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (clarifies actual notice requires subjective awareness of fault "as ultimately alleged by the claimant")
City of Dallas v. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. 2010) (police crash report that merely describes apparent cause but does not attribute fault to the governmental unit is insufficient for actual notice)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Estate of Arancibia, 324 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2010) (actual notice satisfied where internal communications showed subjective awareness that clinical error contributed to death)
Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Fayette County, 453 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2015) (reiterates general rule that governmental entities are immune from suit absent statutory waiver)