Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Community Justice Assistance Division v. Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero
384 S.W.3d 810
Tex.2012Background
- TDCJ appeals an interlocutory denial of its plea to the jurisdiction over damages claims arising from actions of two SATF officers at Nueces County facility.
- Plaintiffs Campos, Gonzalez, and Valero alleged §1983 claims, premises defect, and negligent hiring/training/supervision/implementation of policy against TDCJ (and later CSCD).
- Plaintiffs claimed assaults/sexual harassment occurred while detainees were at SATF and that tangible property was used to gain access and confine them during assaults.
- The Texas Court of Appeals held immunity waived for negligent hiring/training/supervision and policy implementation under the TTCA’s tangible-property use; other claims were dismissed or not waived.
- Texas Supreme Court reverses, holding no waiver for TDCJ; the alleged use of property was to facilitate intentional torts, and use of property did not trigger TTCA immunity waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TTCA waiver apply for claims alleging use of tangible property to facilitate assaults | Campos argues tangible-property use by officers yields waiver. | TDCJ contends no waiver because property use was to commit intentional torts, not a passive use. | No waiver; TTCA not triggered by property used to commit intentional torts. |
| Does the intentional-torts exception bar waiver for negligent claims arising with intentional conduct | Campos asserts negligence theories separate from the intentional torts survive TTCA waiver. | TDCJ argues exceptions exclude waivers when underlying conduct is intentional. | Intentional-torts exception bars waiver; no TTCA immunity waiver for negligent theories tied to intentional acts. |
| Are negligent supervision/training claims waived by tangible-property use or by separate negligence theory | Campos maintains negligent supervision fits within TTCA use of tangible property. | TDCJ contends supervision/training claims do not involve tangible-property use. | Not waived; TTCA use requirement not satisfied by alleged negligent supervision/training. |
| Does making property available to officers constitute a TTCA ‘use’ | Campos claims TDCJ made property available to facilitate assaults. | TDCJ contends merely providing property is not a use under TTCA. | Providing non-inherently unsafe property is not a TTCA use; immunity not waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2001) (intentional torts exclude immunity; information is not tangible property)
- San Antonio State Hosp. v. Cowan, 128 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2004) (use of property must be actual use to bring property into service)
- Tex. Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (pleading and discovery rules govern immunity challenges in TTCA cases)
- Delaney v. Univ. of Houston, 835 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1992) (intentional tort exclusion; information vs tangible property)
- Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) (interlocutory appeal jurisdiction in governmental immunity contexts)