Opinion
No. 06-04-00106-CV
Submitted: December 8, 2004.
Decided: February 11, 2005.
On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court, Marion County, Texas, Trial Court No. 0400017.
Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.
OPINION
Leronda Vallery fell as she was walking on a small ramp leading into the City of Jefferson's police department. She had traversed the ramp about once a month for as long as four years when she went to visit her mother, an employee of the police department. Vallery suffered injuries and brought suit against the City. Vallery's suit was in the nature of a premises liability claim.
The City brought a plea to the trial court's jurisdiction asserting that, under the rules of governmental immunity, it could not be held liable for Vallery's injuries. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 101.021-.029 (Vernon 1997 Supp. 2004-2005). In the same motion, the City moved for summary judgment, but subsequently abandoned that motion and asked the trial court to proceed solely on the plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The City now appeals and argues there was no subject-matter jurisdiction for two reasons:
Texas courts often use the terms "sovereign immunity" and "governmental immunity" interchangeably. As the Texas Supreme Court has noted, "sovereign immunity" refers to the State's immunity from suit and liability, while "governmental immunity" protects political subdivisions of the State, which include counties, cities, and school districts. See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 n. 3 (Tex. 2003). Although the City couches its argument in terms of "sovereign immunity," we will refer to the City's claimed immunity as governmental.
(1) The claimant had knowledge of the alleged premises defect; and
(2) There is no evidence that a contemporaneous activity caused the injury.
We affirm.
Vallery's Claim and the Standard of Review
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction, we construe the pleadings in favor of the nonmovant and look to the nonmovant's intent. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). We are not required to look solely to the pleadings when deciding a plea to the jurisdiction; we may consider evidence relevant to jurisdiction when it is necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issue raised. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002); Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). Whether a pleader has alleged facts which affirmatively demonstrate a trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Likewise, whether undisputed evidence of jurisdictional facts establishes a trial court's jurisdiction is also a question of law. Tex. Dep't of Parks Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004). Therefore, we will review the trial court's order de novo.
In Vallery's second amended petition, she alleged the City's immunity was waived and the City was liable under Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 101.021(2) and 101.0215(a)(3), (16), (25), and (28).
Vallery eventually filed a third amended petition and attached to it a reporter's record of the hearing held October 25, 2004, in this matter. The City's notice of appeal was filed September 28, 2004, and the trial court's ruling, from which the City appeals, was entered September 8, 2004. Our review is limited to the appellate record. See Pinnacle Data Servs., Inc. v. Gillen, 104 S.W.3d 188, 193 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.)
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.0215(a)(3), (16), (25), and (28) holds municipalities liable for damages arising from governmental functions involving street construction and design; civic, convention centers, or coliseums' parking facilities; and building codes and inspections, respectively.
Vallery alleges that her action is brought pursuant to a waiver of governmental immunity. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides in pertinent part that a governmental entity is liable for "personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021(2). Vallery specifically alleged that "she was injured by a condition of real property which would render a private citizen liable to her for her injuries were they to have occurred on private property, and as a consequence thereof, the City of Jefferson, Texas has waived its sovereign immunity and consented to suit under the Texas Tort Claims Act. . . ."
Section 101.021 reads, in full:
A governmental unit in the state is liable for:
(1) property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment if:
(A) the property damage, personal injury, or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment; and
(B) the employee would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law; and
(2) personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law.
A court deciding a plea to the jurisdiction is not meant to decide the merits of the case in resolving the jurisdictional question, but is required to make inquiry into the substance of the claims presented to determine subject-matter jurisdiction. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554-55 (Tex. 2000). Whether a determination of subject-matter jurisdiction can be made at a preliminary hearing or should await a fuller development of the merits of the case is left to the trial court's discretion. Blue, 34 S.W.3d at 554; see also Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (citing Blue, 34 S.W.3d at 554) ("When the consideration of a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction requires the examination of evidence, the trial court exercises its discretion in deciding whether the jurisdictional determination should be made at a preliminary hearing or await a fuller development of the case, mindful that this determination must be made as soon as practicable.").
See also Friends of Canyon Lake, Inc. v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Auth., 96 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) (trial court has discretion, at a preliminary hearing at which it considered evidence furnished by parties, to decide that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff had not exhausted its administrative remedies).
(1) The claimant had knowledge of the premises defect
The City claims that Vallery had prior knowledge of the premises defect which allegedly caused her injury and therefore the trial court was deprived of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The petition alleges the City owed Vallery "the duty owed to a licensee on private property, which is the duty not to injure the licensee through willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct." The pleadings include allegations the City designed and constructed a sidewalk handicap access in an unsafe manner by reason of an excessive slope, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, willfully approved such construction in violation of its own building code, willfully failed to maintain the ramp by installation of hand rails, hand holds, edge marking, all of which was known by agents of the City. The City may be held liable only if it has violated a duty owed to a licensee. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 101.022. Vallery attempts to meet this requirement by pleading facts to establish that the City was grossly negligent. In Miranda, the Texas Supreme Court held that a gross negligence pleading was sufficiently stated when the plaintiff alleged that a falling tree branch severely injured the plaintiff at a campsite, that such branches were unpruned and uninspected, creating a danger of which the Department was aware, and that the plaintiffs had asked a Department employee for a recommendation for a safe camping location. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 230.
In reviewing Vallery's pleadings, we find that she pled the necessary elements of a prima facie case to invest the trial court with subject-matter jurisdiction. She brought suit alleging the City was liable (as it would be were it a private person) because of willful, wanton conduct or gross negligence in its construction and maintenance of the ramp entering its police department. Applying a liberal construction to the pleadings, as required, demonstrates that Vallery has stated a cause of action against the City for gross negligence. See id.
The City claimed Vallery knew of the condition of the ramp, thereby precluding her from any recovery. In support, the City directs us to a brief excerpt from Vallery's deposition, wherein she stated she did know of the "drop-off" on the sides of the ramp:
Q. So would it be fair to say that you knew what the ramp was like and that there was a drop-off on the side?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to your accident had you ever engaged in conversation with anybody about that sidewalk or ramp?
A. No.
Q. Did you — did you ever report it to anybody as being dangerous?
A. No.
Q. Did you consider it to be unreasonably dangerous?
A. No.
Q. Would you say that the condition of the ramp was open and obvious?
[Vallery's attorney]: Object to the form.
Q. [By City's attorney]: You can answer the question.
A. [Vallery] Yes.
The City's attack on the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction is based on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, which held that, where the licensee has the same knowledge of a dangerous condition as the licensor, there exists no duty to the licensee. 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. 2003).
We find that the City's reliance on Miller is misplaced. There the plaintiff alleged only ordinary negligence against Wal-Mart, which contrasts with Vallery's suit, which alleges only willful, wanton, or gross negligence on the part of the City. Vallery asserted a claim which requires that she prove the City was grossly negligent. This pleading and the proof necessary are based on the general standard involved for a licensee to recover from the licensor. See State v. Tennison, 509 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 1974). If a plaintiff was on the premises merely as a licensee, the only duty a defendant would owe him or her would not be to injure him or her willfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence. An exception to the general rule is that when the licensor has knowledge of a dangerous condition, and the licensee does not, a duty is owed on the part of the licensor to either warn the licensee or make the condition reasonably safe. Id. at 562. Vallery does not rely on the exception to the general rule to claim that the City owes her the duty of ordinary care. In Miller, the plaintiff alleged Wal-Mart knew of the slippery condition of the stairs and he did not; therefore, Wal-Mart breached its duty to exercise ordinary care toward him. The jury answered questions concerning Wal-Mart's negligence, not gross negligence. The entire discussion by the court in reviewing the case was based on the allegation that Wal-Mart knew of a dangerous condition, failed to warn the plaintiff, that the plaintiff did not know about it, all of which invoked Wal-Mart's duty to use ordinary care. In that context, the Texas Supreme Court stated that, "If the licensee has the same knowledge about the dangerous condition as the licensor, then no duty to the licensee exists." Miller, 102 S.W.3d at 709. That does not apply to this case because Vallery is not alleging the City knew of a condition of which she was unaware or that the City failed to exercise ordinary care. Under the pleadings, the plaintiff is only entitled to a jury submission (if raised by the evidence) questioning if the City was grossly negligent. Therefore, we hold that Vallery's knowledge of the condition of the premises in this context does not negate the duty the City has not to injure her willfully, wantonly, or by gross negligence. The pattern jury instruction clearly makes this distinction. Compare Comm. on Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Tex., Texas Pattern Jury Charges PJC 66.5 (2003) with Comm. on Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Tex., Texas Pattern Jury Charges PJC 66.8 (2003) ("PJC 66.8 presents a ground of recovery independent of that found in PJC 66.4 or PJC 66.5." PJC 66.8 cmt.). Hence, the degree of Vallery's knowledge about the ramp and its condition are not necessarily relevant to the trial court's determination of subject-matter jurisdiction. We overrule the City's first point of error.
(2) No evidence that a contemporaneous activity caused the injury
The City alleges that Vallery has not pled any negligent activity liability and prays that we dismiss Vallery's claim based on a condition or use of tangible property separate from her premises liability claim. Recovery on that theory requires that the person have been injured by or as a contemporaneous result of the activity itself rather than by a condition created by the activity. Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992). We agree there is no allegation by Vallery that she is claiming that a contemporaneous activity of the City caused her injuries. Consequently, no such claim is before us to dismiss. Vallery's claim clearly is a premises liability claim that the City acted willfully, wantonly, or was grossly negligent in the construction and maintenance of the ramp.
We affirm the trial court's denial of the City's plea to the jurisdiction.