The University of Texas at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113

Hayes bicycled onto UT Austin campus at night and encountered a barricade and a chain blocking a service driveway behind the Alumni Center.
The University had closed the driveway to configure parking for a football game and placed an eight-foot-wide barricade in front of the chain.
Hayes veered around the barricade and struck the chain, sustaining injuries.
Hayes sued UT Austin under the Texas Tort Claims Act, alleging a premises defect and failure to warn.
The trial court denied the University's plea to the jurisdiction and granted Hayes partial summary judgment; on appeal the court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.
The Court held the condition was not a special defect or a premises defect with actual knowledge by the landowner, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the chain location a TTCA special defect?	Hayes argues the chain and barricade create a dangerous condition akin to a special defect.	University contends the location is not a special defect under §101.022(b).	No; chain not a special defect.
Does the University have actual knowledge of a dangerous condition to support a premises-defect claim?	University knew of the chain and its danger at the time of the accident.	There was no actual knowledge of a dangerous condition; barricade negates knowledge.	No; lack of actual knowledge forecloses premises-defect claim.

Texas Dep't of Transp. v. York, 284 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (defines special defects and the ordinary-user standard)
Denton County v. Beynon, 283 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. 2009) (special defects depend on threat to ordinary users; narrow class)
City of Corsicana v. Stewart, 249 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. 2008) (actual knowledge required for premises-defect defense)
State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1992) (examples and limits of special defects)
City of El Paso v. Bernal, 986 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1999) (special-defect cases; per curiam)