Tex. Facilities Comm'n v. Speer
559 S.W.3d 245
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- The Texas Facilities Commission (Commission) manages Lot 27, a State-owned surface parking lot adjacent to 11th Street near the Capitol; a cable barrier (two bollards with a suspended cable) was installed across a driveway access point to address an "intersection problem."
- Courtland Speer alleges that at ~10 p.m. he tripped on the cable (allegedly sagging to mid-shin height) and fell; he also alleges missing/deteriorated reflective material made the cable virtually invisible at night.
- Speer sued the Commission for negligence seeking monetary damages; the Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity unless the Tort Claims Act (TTCA) waives it.
- Speer argued his claim fits TTCA §101.060(a)(2) (claims involving the absence, condition, or malfunction of a traffic/road sign, signal, or warning device), so constructive notice suffices; the Commission argued the claim is a premises-defect claim governed by §101.022(a)’s licensee standard requiring actual notice.
- The court concluded Speer’s claim is a premises-defect (trip-and-fall) claim, §101.060(a)(2) does not apply to the cable/reflectors as a traffic device in context of the TTCA, and Speer failed to plead or prove the required actual notice — reversing the denial of the plea and dismissing the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cable/reflectors qualify as a "traffic or road sign, signal, or warning device" under TTCA §101.060(a)(2) | The cable/reflectors are a traffic/warning device addressing an intersection hazard, so §101.060(a)(2) applies | The cable is a premises feature, not a traffic device within the statute's roadway-focused scope | Not a traffic/road device for §101.060(a)(2); statute's context limits devices to those used with hazards "normally connected with the use of the roadway," and Speer fell off the roadway in the lot |
| Whether TTCA §101.060(a)(2) notice requirement includes constructive notice | §101.060(a)(2) permits actual or constructive notice | N/A (defendant disputes applicability) | Court accepts that §101.060(a)(2) can include constructive notice, but the provision does not apply here |
| Whether Speer’s theory is a premises-defect claim or a claim based on use/condition of tangible personal property | Speer attempted to recast and disclaimed premises-defect labels in amended pleading | Commission argued substance controls and the claim is a premises defect (trip hazard due to static condition) | Substance controls; trip-and-fall from a static cable condition is a premises-defect claim (Sampson principle) |
| Whether Speer met the licensee standard (actual notice of an unreasonably dangerous condition) under §101.022(a) | Evidence (photographs, testimony about deteriorated reflectors, sagging) supports notice/creates fact issue | No reports or complaints before Speer; evidence shows at best deterioration/constructive notice, not actual knowledge of a dangerous tripping condition | Speer failed to plead/produce facts showing the Commission had actual knowledge that the cable presented an unreasonably dangerous tripping hazard; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. Univ. of Tex., 500 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2016) (trip-and-fall from static placement of personal property is a premises-defect claim under TTCA)
- State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishing special defects and recognizing licensee standard under §101.022(a))
- Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Perches, 388 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. 2012) (special-defect analysis—location relative to ordinary users of roadways matters)
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (statutory waiver under TTCA construed narrowly; substance-over-labels approach to TTCA claims)
- Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Garza, 70 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2002) (construction of "condition" of a traffic sign under §101.060(a)(2))