John Sampson v. the University of Texas at Austin
500 S.W.3d 380
| Tex. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 21, 2009, UT hosted a tailgate; Professor John Sampson tripped on an extension cord strung across a campus walkway and tore his rotator cuff.
- The cord powered tree lights installed for the event by vendor AWR; parties disputed who placed the cord and whether it was taped down.
- Sampson sued UT (and AWR) for negligence, asserting waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act §101.021/§101.022.
- The trial court denied UT’s plea to the jurisdiction and summary-judgment motions; the Third Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed UT for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Texas Supreme Court considered (1) whether the claim is based on tangible personal property (use/condition) or a premises defect, and (2) whether Sampson produced evidence of UT’s actual knowledge of the dangerous condition.
- Court held Sampson’s claim is a premises-defect claim and affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because there was no evidence UT had actual knowledge of the tripping hazard at the time of the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization: tangible personal property (use/condition) vs. premises defect | Sampson: cord was movable/temporary — claim falls under use/condition of tangible personal property (general negligence standard) | UT: placement created a premises condition; claim is a premises defect requiring heightened proof (actual knowledge) | Court: claim is a premises defect — cord created a dangerous condition on real property, so §101.022 controls |
| Waiver of immunity under premises-defect standard | Sampson: he presented evidence (UT involvement in setup, walk-throughs, replugging cord) sufficient to raise fact question on actual knowledge | UT: evidence shows at most constructive/possible knowledge; no direct evidence UT knew of the specific hazardous placement when injury occurred | Held for UT: plaintiff failed to raise a genuine fact issue of actual knowledge; dismissal affirmed |
| Evidence sufficiency re: actual knowledge | Sampson: UT employees inspected setup, replugged cord, and UT provided electrical — supports inference UT knew cord was unsecured | UT: employees merely observed lights working; replugging does not show attention to cord placement; no reports of prior problems | Court: circumstantial evidence here is insufficient; proximity/inspection without more is not actual knowledge |
| Standard of review / burden on jurisdictional plea | Sampson: because plea implicates merits, he need only raise fact issue; all favorable evidence and inferences should be credited to him | UT: once it produced evidence negating jurisdictional element, Sampson must show contested material fact | Court: applied plea-to-jurisdiction summary-judgment standard — accepted plaintiff evidence and inferences but found no fact issue on actual knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (sovereign immunity implicates subject-matter jurisdiction; waiver required)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (distinguishes premises-defect claims from tangible personal-property use/condition claims under Tort Claims Act)
- Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2010) (slip/trip-and-fall claims treated as premises-defect claims)
- Univ. of Tex.-Pan Am. v. Aguilar, 251 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. 2008) (actual-knowledge element required for premises-defect waiver; no evidence of actual knowledge)
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (distinction between negligent activity and premises liability)
- DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1995) (premises-liability duty under Tort Claims Act tied to common-law licensee standard)
- City of Dallas v. Thompson, 210 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. 2006) (proximity of employees or knowledge that a condition could develop is insufficient to prove actual knowledge)