City of Austin, Texas v. Leggett

Insufficient evidence supported an inference that the city of Austin actually knew of the ultimate dangerous condition that is the proper focus of Trudy Leggett's premises-defect claim — the flooded intersection. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-07-00345-CV.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

At approximately 6 p.m. on November 15, 2001, seventeen year-old Nathan Leggett tragically drowned after attempting to drive through a flooded street in southwest Austin. That afternoon, it was undisputed that the Austin area had been hit by thunderstorms with intense rainfall, hail, tornados and widespread flooding. Nathan’s mother, Trudy Leggett, individually and as Nathan’s heir, sued the City of Austin for damages under the survival statute and wrongful death act. She alleged that the City’s negligent maintenance or design of a stormwater detention pond, located north of the intersection where Nathan drowned, had caused debris to clog a grate covering the pond’s designed drainage outlet, resulting in storm waters backing up and ultimately overflowing the pond, flooding the adjacent residential area and causing Nathan’s death.*fn1

Leggett’s suit implicates the City’s governmental immunity, the long-established common-law doctrine that categorically bars suits for money damages against municipalities unless the legislature has consented to suit. See, e.g., City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Tex. 2007); Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex. 2006); Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex. 2006).*fn2 Leggett purports to assert claims within the legislative waivers of immunity under the tort claims act for damages claims based on theories of premises defects and “special defects.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.022(a)-(b) (West Supp. 2007). Asserting that its immunity against Leggett’s claims had not been waived, the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court denied the plea, specifically finding “as a matter of law that the condition was a special defect.” The City appeals this order. See id. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2007).*fn3 Concluding that Leggett’s suit does not fall within the tort claims act’s waivers of immunity, we must reverse and render judgment dismissing the suit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

City of Austin, Texas v. Leggett

Insufficient evidence supported an inference that the city of Austin actually knew of the ultimate dangerous condition that is the proper focus of Trudy Leggett's premises-defect claim — the flooded intersection. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-07-00345-CV.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Texas Lawyer