Texas Department of Transportation A/K/A TXDOT v. Martina Jackson, Individually and on Behalf of Her Husband, Keith Jackson, and Carly Rose Jackson, and Lara Marie Jackson
528 S.W.3d 598
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- At ~12:00 a.m. on April 9, 2009, Keith Jackson struck a TxDOT exit sign that had blown into the lane and died; 911 calls about the downed sign began at 12:01 a.m. and the crash was reported shortly thereafter.
- The same Diana Avenue sign had been repaired nine days earlier (March 30, 2009) after a TxDOT crew found two broken fuse plates on one leg; the crew replaced fuse plates and hand‑tightened nuts/bolts but did not use a torque wrench.
- The sign’s design uses fuse plates intended to break under impact; the sign was rated for 80 mph winds; weather that night had gusts reported between ~33–60 mph.
- Plaintiffs (Jackson’s widow and children) sued TxDOT under the Texas Tort Claims Act alleging a premises special‑defect theory: TxDOT knew or should have known of a dangerous condition (from the March 30 repair) and failed to make the sign reasonably safe or warn motorists.
- At trial the jury found TxDOT negligent and awarded damages (later reduced to $250,000 statutory cap); TxDOT appealed arguing legally insufficient evidence of notice and opportunity to remedy, and invoked emergency‑response immunity theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved TxDOT had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition before April 9 | Notice should be measured from March 30 repair; evidence that bolts were not properly pre‑tensioned (expert testimony, loose bolts/fretting, crew chief admission) established notice of danger | Notice must be measured at the time of injury; no evidence TxDOT knew of a dangerous condition after March 30 or before the April 9 failure | Held: Insufficient evidence of notice after March 30; no evidence TxDOT knew of the dangerous condition before the accident — verdict cannot stand |
| Whether plaintiffs showed TxDOT had a reasonable opportunity to warn or make safe after notice | The March 30 repair was ineffective (hand‑tightening rather than torque verification) so TxDOT had a continuing duty to make safe | Even if March 30 is considered, plaintiffs failed to show what a reasonable inspection or remedy would have revealed or when; 13 minutes between first 911 call and crash was insufficient for remedy | Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove what a reasonable inspection would have shown or that TxDOT had time to remedy after actual notice; legal insufficiency affirmed |
| Whether antecedent repairs/conditions (March 30) can constitute the hazardous condition for a premises special‑defect claim | The improperly repaired sign itself can be a dangerous condition that imposes a duty to make safe | Texas precedent often treats the dangerous condition as the condition at time/place of injury, not an antecedent event producing it | Held: Antecedent condition argument fails here for lack of proof that reasonable inspection would have disclosed a dangerous condition after March 30 (CMH Homes controlling) |
| Applicability of emergency‑response exception to TTCA waiver | Plaintiffs did not invoke emergency‑response exception; on appeal TxDOT argues employees were responding to an emergency so waiver doesn’t apply | Plaintiffs argued March 30 repair was not an emergency situation and TTCA waiver applies | Held: Court need not resolve emergency doctrine because it found no evidence of notice; issue not reached further |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 940 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. 1996) (sets elements for a premises special‑defect claim — unreasonable risk, notice, and failure to warn/make safe)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (owner liable only if a reasonable inspection would have revealed the unsafe condition)
- Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. 2007) (dangerous condition is ordinarily the condition at time and place of injury, not an antecedent situation)
- City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 931 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1996) (distinguishes antecedent defects from the dangerous condition and considers whether responsible persons knew an injury‑creating condition would exist)
- Fort Brown Villas III Condo. Ass’n v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. 2009) (no evidence of defective condition where plaintiff didn’t show improper inspection would have revealed defect)
Outcome: Judgment reversed and rendered for TxDOT for lack of legally sufficient evidence that TxDOT had notice of a dangerous condition and opportunity to remedy before the accident.