Harris County, Texas v. Stephanie Jo Baker
01-15-00930-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Stephanie Jo Baker was arrested by a Harris County deputy on Jan. 24, 2012, and alleges injury from (a) overtight or improperly used handcuffs during the arrest and (b) a subsequent fall/assault in the jail booking room that fractured teeth and wrist injuries.
- Baker originally pleaded that the deputy "violently" used force; she later filed a first amended petition removing some intentional language and pleaded negligence based on use/condition of tangible property (handcuffs, booking-room fixtures, furniture).
- Harris County filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) preserves immunity for claims arising out of intentional torts (assault/battery) and that, alternatively, Baker failed to show a negligent "use" of property that proximately caused her injuries under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.021(2).
- The county submitted Baker’s discovery responses, deposition testimony, and a jail Significant Event Bulletin showing the deputy acted to maintain distance and that Baker — allegedly intoxicated and combative — stood and approached officers, leading to defensive force.
- The district court denied Harris County’s plea to the jurisdiction. Harris County appeals, arguing (1) Baker’s claims arise out of battery (intentional tort) so immunity remains under §101.057, and (2) even if negligence, the property (handcuffs/bench/room) merely furnished the condition making the injury possible and thus §101.021 waiver does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest-related injuries from handcuffing are covered by TTCA waiver | Baker frames claim as negligent use of handcuffs causing injury | Harris County: arrest and alleged excessive force arise out of battery (intentional tort) so immunity retained under §101.057(2) | District court denied plea; Harris County argues on appeal the claim is barred by intentional-tort exception (seek reversal) |
| Whether booking-room injuries (fall, contact with bench/furniture) are a negligent "use" of property under §101.021(2) | Baker contends injuries resulted from negligent use/placement of restraints or booking-room property | Harris County: evidence shows force was intentional/self‑defensive (battery) and, alternatively, handcuffs/bench only furnished condition making injury possible (no proximate causal use of property) | District court denied plea; Harris County argues immunity applies (intentional tort) or §101.021 inapplicable |
| Whether the handcuffs themselves (as tangible property) can support a negligence claim when injury occurred during handling/transport | Baker: handcuffs were negligently applied/used and contributed to injury | Harris County: handcuffs were part of arrest (battery); injuries to head/teeth occurred when slammed into bench — handcuffs merely incidental | District court denied plea; Harris County argues such claims are battery-based or too attenuated from a compensable “use” of property |
| Whether plaintiff should get another opportunity to amend after county filed plea and discovery | Baker amended once after plea; seeks to maintain negligence pleading | Harris County: Baker already amended and had discovery; should not be permitted further leave to cure jurisdictional defects | District court denied plea; Harris County argues further amendment is unwarranted and appellate reversal is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2014) (lawful arrest and inadvertent excessive force arising during arrest constitute a battery; TTCA’s waiver does not apply to claims that arise out of intentional torts)
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing plea to the jurisdiction; consider relevant evidence and accept evidence favorable to the nonmovant)
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (sovereign/governmental immunity principles; jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any time)
- Dallas County MHMR v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1998) (TTCA waiver for injury caused by condition or use of tangible property requires proximate causation; property that only furnishes condition making injury possible does not waive immunity)
- Pineda v. City of Houston, 175 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (a plaintiff cannot evade the TTCA intentional‑tort exception by pleading negligence when the claim in substance arises from an intentional tort)