Donnie Doyle Brown v. Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority
13-15-00188-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 11, 2015Background
- On May 4, 2012, Donnie Brown was attempting to board an RTA bus when the doors closed with his arm caught; he was dragged and the bus ran over his left arm, requiring surgery.
- RTA personnel (driver, supervisor, Director of Safety) and police were on scene; police photographed the driver’s right-side mirror and the scene; RTA completed internal reports and rated the accident "Non-Preventable."
- Brown did not provide the six‑month written notice required by the Texas Tort Claims Act; he sued 23 months after the accident and asserted the RTA had actual (subjective) notice of its fault.
- RTA filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing lack of written notice and no actual subjective awareness of fault; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed the case.
- Evidence Brown relied on to create a fact issue: (1) bus physically struck him, (2) police photos showing clear mirror view, (3) RTA operating rules requiring mirrors/door checks and extra time for certain passengers, (4) driver’s prior similar incidents, and (5) a 2012 audit critical of RTA’s accident rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting RTA's plea to the jurisdiction based on Brown's failure to give statutory written notice | Brown: circumstantial evidence shows RTA had "actual subjective awareness" that its fault produced or contributed to injury, so the written‑notice requirement is excused | RTA: it had notice of the incident but lacked subjective awareness of any fault producing the injury; therefore statutory written notice required | Trial court granted RTA's plea and dismissed the suit (RTA prevailed at trial level) |
| Whether circumstantial evidence (mirror photos, RTA rules, prior driver incidents, audit) can create a fact issue on subjective awareness | Brown: this evidence raises more‑than‑scintilla support that RTA knew or should have known its fault and did not investigate candidly | RTA: internal investigation and police report found non‑preventable/no RTA fault; assertions of fault are speculative | Court allowed limited discovery but ultimately granted the plea; appellant argues credibility disputes make dismissal improper |
| Admissibility/prejudice of assertion Brown was "highly intoxicated" | Brown: affidavit claiming intoxication is hearsay, prejudicial, and irrelevant because RTA rules require extra time for intoxicated passengers | RTA: (implicit) raises intoxication as a causal contributor to excuse driver conduct | Trial court considered pleadings/affidavits in plea; appellant challenged intoxication statement as hearsay in response |
| Whether disputed credibility of witnesses makes plea inappropriate | Brown: credibility of RTA officials is dispositive; summary disposition inappropriate where credibility matters | RTA: claims investigation supports its position and no subjective awareness exists as a matter of law | Trial court resolved jurisdictional plea in RTA’s favor; appellant contends credibility requires trial on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (defines "actual notice" to require knowledge of governmental unit's alleged fault and recognizes subjective awareness may be shown circumstantially)
- University of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Estate of Arancibia, 324 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2010) (a governmental unit cannot foreclose subjective awareness simply by pointing to its investigatory conclusion)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for plea to the jurisdiction and that evidence is taken in the light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1989) (credibility disputes generally make summary disposition inappropriate)
- City of Dallas v. Carabajal, 324 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. 2010) (actual‑notice analysis where absence of city personnel or knowledge at time of incident foreclosed subjective awareness)