University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Baker
401 S.W.3d 246
Tex. App.2012Background
- Bakers sue M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), UT System (UTS), and Proton Therapy Center-Houston Ltd., L.L.P. (PTC) for lead exposure injuries to their children.
- Allegations: milling machine at PTC emitted lead dust, contaminating Preston Baker's clothing which he took home, exposing children.
- MDA/UTS asserted sovereign immunity; trial court denied plea to jurisdiction; interlocutory appeal followed.
- Pleadings allege take-home exposure, inadequate protective equipment, and failure to follow OSHA lead regulations and shop safety programs.
- Court analyzes TTCA immunity waiver for injuries caused by the condition or use of tangible property and proximate causation.
- Issue remands: potential waiver as to UTS depends on further pleading and discovery on jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether immunity is waived by use or condition of tangible property | Bakers allege milling machine used to create lead dust; absence of integral safety components also alleged. | Use/condition theories do not establish waiver; take-home exposure is not linked to property use. | Waiver established by use and by missing integral safety components. |
| Proximate cause nexus between property use and injuries | Lead dust from milling machine directly caused children's injuries; foreseeability supports causation. | Exposure linked to home environment, attenuated from machine use; lack of close causal nexus. | Proximate cause shown; use of milling machine directly connected to injuries. |
| Duty and breach by MDA/UTS | Defendants owed duty to furnish safe equipment and protect against take-home exposures; breached by providing lacking safety components. | No duty owed for home exposure; workers instructed to use machine as intended; no breach. | Bakers plead sufficient duty and breach to defeat immunity. |
| Involvement of a UTS employee and potential waiver as to UTS | UTS involvement may support liability; discovery may reveal control over property or safety programs. | No clear pleading of UTS liability; need jurisdictional discovery; remand may be appropriate. | Issue as to UTS sustained for remand; proceed to allow jurisdictional development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bossley v. Dallas Cnty. Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 968 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. 1998) (unlocked doors did not cause death; NIV proximate cause analysis under TTCA)
- Cowan v. San Antonio State Hosp., 128 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2004) (use of property requires more than mere access; definition of 'use')
- Harvey v. University of North Tex. Tex. A&M Univ., 124 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003) (use of property cases; danger of missing integral safety components)
- Posey v. Dallas Cnty., 290 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. 2009) (non-use cases; hazard must be posed in intended use)
- Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1976) (uniform lacking essential safety component constitutes use)
- Robinson v. Cent. Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. 1989) (life preserver absence context in use of property)