Tarrant Regional Water District v. Richard Johnson and Sharkara Johnson, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Brandy Johnson, 572 S.W.3d 658

Background

Brandy Johnson drowned after slipping from Trinity Park Dam No. 2 (a kayak chute) in Fort Worth; her parents sued the Tarrant Regional Water District (the District).
The District rebuilt the dam in 2003 after discovering downstream scouring that had deepened the riverbed; engineers testified the post-2003 design intentionally left the plunge pool at a depth of about eight feet to protect kayakers.
The Johnsons alleged premise-defect liability based on the scoured riverbed and a resulting hydraulic "boil," inadequate warning signs, a slippery chute, and a strong current; they asserted the District knew of prior incidents.
The District invoked governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act and, in particular, the discretionary-function exception, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.056.
The court of appeals held some design-related claims barred by the discretionary-function exception but allowed the premise-defect claim tied to alleged failure to maintain the scour hole to proceed; the District sought review in the Supreme Court of Texas.
The Supreme Court held the District’s decisions about the riverbed depth and related maintenance were discretionary policy choices protected by § 101.056 and rendered judgment dismissing all claims against the District.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 101.056 bars claims tied to the dam’s design features (chute slipperiness, current, signage)	Johnsons: These defects caused death and waived immunity under premise-defect theory	District: Design choices are discretionary and immune under § 101.056	Held: Design-related claims barred by § 101.056 (not reviewed by this Court on cross-appeal)
Whether claims based on the scoured riverbed and alleged hydraulic boil are maintenance (non-discretionary) and thus outside § 101.056	Johnsons: Scour/boil resulted from failure to maintain; evidence disputes that 8-ft depth was intended, so immunity not barred	District: 2003 decision intentionally graded the bed to ~8 ft; decisions re: depth and maintenance are discretionary	Held: District’s grading/maintenance decisions were discretionary; § 101.056 bars these claims
Whether the "design vs. maintenance" dichotomy controls application of § 101.056	Johnsons: Maintenance failures are operational and not protected; design/maintenance labels should prevail	District: Labels aside, the actions involve discretionary policy choices about public works and resource allocation	Held: Labels are useful but subordinate to statutory focus on whether action was discretionary; here discretion exists and protects the District
Whether the danger was open and obvious, defeating premise-defect waiver	Johnsons: Scour/boil were hidden; warnings inadequate	District: Even if open-and-obvious, § 101.056 independently bars suit; also contests factual evidence of a boil	Held: Court did not reach open-and-obvious or evidentiary challenges because § 101.056 provides immunity

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (Tort Claims Act waivers and evidentiary standard for jurisdictional pleas)
Stephen F. Austin State Univ. v. Flynn, 228 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2007) (discretionary-function exception: policy-level vs operational-level and design vs maintenance framework)
City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (courts may not add statutory language; interpret § 101.056 by text)
State v. Rodriguez, 985 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. 1999) (design of public works is discretionary under § 101.056)
County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (distinction between design discretion and non-discretionary maintenance obligations)
Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Ramirez, 74 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. 2002) (highway design and choice of safety features are discretionary)
State v. San Miguel, 2 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 1999) (decisions about highway safety features are discretionary)
State v. Burris, 877 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. 1994) (government immune for discretionary roadway design)
Tarrant Reg. Water Dist. v. Gragg, 151 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2004) (characterizing the District as a political subdivision)
Sampson v. Univ. of Tex., 500 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2018) (plea-to-jurisdiction evidentiary standard)