572 S.W.3d 658
Tex.2019Background
- 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)