Joy Worsdale, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott Worsdale v. the City of Killeen, Texas, 578 S.W.3d 57

On an unlit county road in Killeen a motorcycle struck a large unbarricaded dirt mound blocking the roadway; two riders were fatally injured (one died immediately, one later).
Killeen police investigated within days, photographed and 3D-mapped the scene, and identified the roadway obstruction and lack of warnings as contributing factors.
City officials (engineering/street works, city inspector, deputy city attorney) were involved; they disputed maintenance responsibility with Bell County and could not locate an ordinance showing formal abandonment after annexation.
Two days after the crash the City removed the dirt pile and installed permanent barricades and signage at the investigator’s request.
Relatives sued the City under the Texas Tort Claims Act alleging a special-defect premises claim; the City moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for failure to give the six‑month statutory notice, asserting no actual notice under section 101.101(c).
The trial court denied the plea; the court of appeals reversed, holding the investigation/report did not as a matter of law show the City’s subjective awareness of its alleged fault; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City had "actual notice" under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.101(c) so formal six‑month notice was excused	The crash report, participation of City officials (including deputy city attorney), the dispute over maintenance, and prompt remedial acts show the City was subjectively aware it may be responsible	The investigation was routine and did not subjectively attribute fault to the City; Carbajal and Tenorio show such reports alone are legally insufficient	The Court held the undisputed record conclusively shows the City had actual notice (subjective awareness of alleged fault) and reversed the court of appeals
Whether Cathey/Simons actual‑notice test should be overruled as inconsistent with §101.101(c) plain text	Relatives urged Cathey imports extra requirements not in the statute and should be overruled	City and State defended Cathey as a proper contextual reading; stare decisis and legislative acquiescence counsel retention	The Court declined to overrule Cathey/Simons and reaffirmed the subjective‑awareness standard

Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (actual‑notice requires knowledge of death/injury and governmental unit’s alleged fault producing or contributing to it)
Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (elaborated Cathey: actual notice means subjective awareness of fault as ultimately alleged by claimant)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Estate of Arancibia, 324 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2010) (internal investigation finding clinical error satisfied actual notice)
City of Dallas v. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. 2010) (routine crash report noting missing barricades insufficient as a matter of law to show City’s subjective awareness of fault)
City of San Antonio v. Tenorio, 543 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. 2018) (evidence that an event involved police pursuit was not by itself proof the City was subjectively aware it was at fault)