Tarrant Regional Water District v. Richard Johnson and Sharkara Johnson, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Brandy Johnson
514 S.W.3d 346
Tex. App.2016Background
- TRWD appeals denial of a plea to the jurisdiction asserting TTCA immunity for Johnsons’ claims.
- Johnsons allege premises defects, negligent design/maintenance, and lack of adequate warnings at Trinity Park Dam No. 2 and its kayak chute.
- Disputed issues center on whether TTCA 101.021 waives immunity and whether 101.056 discretionary-function exemption applies to the Premises.
- Evidence shows Dam No. 2’s kayak chute was designed to be slippery and create a swift current, and the scour hole downstream existed pre- and post-design; plaintiffs emphasize maintenance and design failures.
- Court concludes some claims relate to discretionary design (barred by 101.056) while others (scour hole/boil) raise a fact question and are not barred; remedy is partial dismissal and partial reversal for dismissal of specific claims.
- TRWD’s management of design depth, signs, and warnings is discretionary; scour hole/depth-related issues involve maintenance or non-design aspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTCA discretionary-function applicability | Johnsons argue 101.056 does not bar. | TRWD says design decisions are discretionary. | Partially sustained; discretionary-design claims barred, but some scour-hole/boil-related issues not conclusively barred. |
| Premises-defect waiver vs. non-waiver | Johnsons plead premises defects that may waive immunity. | Discretionary design decisions bar waiver. | Waiver limited to non-discretionary maintenance; design-based claims barred. |
| Misuse of property / special defect viability | Johnsons assert potential misuse or special defect theories. | No viable misuse or special-defect claims. | Both theories not viable; claims dismissed where applicable. |
| Open and obvious danger as basis for immunity | Open-and-obvious defense not argued for scour hole/boil. | Open/obvious not applicable to described scour/boil. | Not grounds to dismiss scour-hole/boil claims; issue unaffected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. San Miguel, 2 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 1999) (tests for discretionary function and design vs. maintenance)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Perches, 388 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. 2012) (design vs. maintenance; discretionary immunity for design of public works)
- Mogayzel v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 66 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001) (premises defects vs. discretionary decisions; maintenance context)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. York, 284 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (definition of special defect; ordinary user standard)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Olivares, 316 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. App.-Houston 2010) (warning signs as design choice; discretionary decision)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Bederka, 36 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001) (agency liability for selection of traffic control devices; design-based)
- Frame, 2016 WL 3068379 (Tex. App.-Austin 2016) (discretionary-powers exception applied to design/warning decisions)