lding that a two-to three-inch difference in elevation between traffic lanes was not a special defect), and City of El Paso v. Bernal, 986 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1999) (holding that a worn or depressed area of a sidewalk approximately three feet by six feet in size with a depth of three inches was not a special defect), with Cty. of Harris v. Eaton, 573 S.W.2d 177, 178-79 (Tex. 1978) (oval-shaped hole six to ten inches deep, and four to nine feet wide, extending across ninety percent of roadway is a special defect), and City of Weston v. Gaudette, 287 S.W.3d 832, 838-39 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (pothole ten feet in diameter and five to six inches deep, extending the width of one traffic lane is a special defect), and Morse v. State, 905 S.W.2d 470, 475-76 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (ten to twelve inch drop off on shoulder of road is a special defect), and State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1980, writ ref' d n.r.e.) (caved-in portion of highway three to five feet wide and three to four feet deep, extending across entire highway is a special defect).

A pothole large enough to stop vehicles in their tracks and cause damage and injury constitutes unexpected and unusual dangers to ordinary users of the roadway. See, e.g., Cty. of Harris v. Eaton, 573 S.W.2d 177, 178-79 (Tex. 1978) (oval-shaped hole six to ten inches deep, and four to nine feet wide, extending across ninety percent of roadway is a special defect); City of Weston v. Gaudette, 287 S.W.3d 832, 838-39 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (pothole ten feet wide and five to six inches deep, extending the width of one traffic lane is a special defect); Morse v. State, 905 S.W.2d 470, 475 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (ten to twelve inch drop off on shoulder of road is a special defect); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (caved-in portion of highway three to five feet wide and three to four feet deep, extending across entire highway is a special defect). The supreme court has declined to expand the statutory definition of "special defect" beyond its terms.

Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 101.022(b) (emphasis added).See, e.g., Harris County v. Eaton, 573 S.W.2d 177, 178-79 (Tex. 1978) (holding that oval-shaped hole six to 10 inches deep and extending across 90 percent of roadway that caused car traveling at 35 miles per hour to flip was special defect); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that caved-in portion of highway three to four feet deep and extending across entire highway was special defect); State v. McBride, 601 S.W.2d 552, 558 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that slick, muddy excavation of highway that was so severe that car traveling at less than 35 miles per hour went out of control was special defect); Miranda v. State, 591 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1979, no writ) (holding that flood water two feet deep across highway was special defect); Andrews v. City of Dallas, 580 S.W.2d 908, 909-11 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1979, no writ) (holding that base of traffic signal extending 26 inches above street level and six inches from roadway was special defect); City of Houston v. Jean, 517 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that ditch four feet from unmarked dead end of street at poorly lighted "T" intersection was special defect).See also, e.g., State Dept. of Highways Pub. Tra

Construed in Hirst's favor, we hold that her first amended petition alleges the existence of a special defect. See Taylor v. Wood County, 133 S.W.3d 811, 813-14 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Thus, the court erred by sustaining the County's plea to the jurisdiction.

In one of the County's photographs, traffic cones surrounding the depression are some feet away from the edge of the bridge. See e.g. Morse v. State, 905 S.W.2d 470, 475 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (10 inch drop-off along shoulder that prevented car's left wheels from reentering roadway once they slipped off was special defect); Stambaugh v. City of White Oak, 894 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no writ) (caved-in portion of road 15 feet by 10 feet special defect); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (3-4 foot caved-in portion of highway special defect); State v. McBride, 601 S.W.2d 552, 558 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (slick, muddy excavation special defect); Miranda v. State, 591 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1979, no writ) (flood water two feet deep across highway special defect). Because there is conflicting evidence as to the character of the depression, fact issues exist as to whether the depression is a special defect.

However, the depression, while not in the middle of road, is still within the parameters of the driving portion of the bridge and can be considered an obstruction. See e.g. Morse v. State, 905 S.W.2d 470, 475 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (10 inch drop-off along shoulder that prevented car's left wheels from reentering roadway once they slipped off was special defect); Stambaugh v. City of White Oak, 894 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no writ) (caved-in portion of road 15 feet by 10 feet special defect); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (3-4 foot caved-in portion of highway special defect); State v. McBride, 601 S.W.2d 552, 558 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (slick, muddy excavation special defect); Miranda v. State, 591 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1979, no writ) (flood water two feet deep across highway special defect). Both parties present conflicting evidence as to the character of the depression.

Texas courts sometimes consider holes in the road to be special defects. See, e.g., Stambaugh v. City of White Oak, 894 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no writ) (10' x 15'caved-in portion of road was special defect); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (3-4' caved-in portion of highway was special defect); Eaton, 573 S.W.2d at 178-79 (Tex. 1978) (hole in road six to ten inches deep extending across ninety percent of the roadway was special defect); Sutton v. State Dep't of Highways, 549 S.W.2d 59, 60-61 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (severe depression in highway where asphalt sunk below abutting concrete bridge was special defect). In determining whether a hole in the road constitutes a special defect, Texas courts generally evaluate two factors: (1) the size of the hole, see Eaton, 573 S.W.2d at 179, and (2) whether such a hole could be considered a routine road hazard, see Durham v. Bowie County, 135 S.W.3d 294, 297 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet. denied) (noting that potholes and ruts on unpaved rural road should be expected).

4 . . . 4. See, e.g., Harris County v. Eaton, 573 S.W.2d 177, 178-80 (Tex. 1978) ("chughole" that varied from six to ten inches in depth and extended over ninety percent of the width of the highway); State Dep't of Highways v. Kitchen, 840 S.W.2d 505, 507-08 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, n.w.h.) (en banc) (ice on bridge); State Dep't of Highways v. Zachary, 824 S.W.2d 813, 816-17 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1992, writ requested) (standing water); City of San Antonio v. Schneider, 787 S.W.2d 459, 466-68 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (wet, slippery road); Chappell v. Dwyer, 611 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1981, no writ) (large brush hiding arroyo); State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (caved-in portion of highway, three to five feet wide and three to four feet deep); State v. McBride, 601 S.W.2d 552, 558 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (slick and muddy condition of road under repair); Miranda v. State, 591 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1979, no writ) (two feet of floodwater); Andrews v. City of Dallas, 580 S.W.2d 908, 909-11 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1979, no writ) (base of traffic signal extending 26 inches above street level and located six inches from traveled portion of highway); City of Houston v. Jean, 517 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (unmarked termination of dead end street four feet from ditch). Issue Two

The summary judgment evidence in this case conclusively establishes that the February 17, 2001, washout of County Road 4121 was a special defect within the meaning of the Act. See State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (ruling three-to four-foot caved-in portion of highway was special defect). Bowie County employees described the dangerous condition in question as a hole extending almost entirely across the width of the roadway, approximately five to seven feet deep and impossible for a vehicle to travel safely over or around.

The summary judgment evidence in this case conclusively establishes that the December 16, 2001, washout of County Road 4990 was a special defect within the meaning of the Act. See State v. Nichols, 609 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (ruling three- to four-foot caved-in portion of highway was special defect). A Wood County employee, John Noe, described the dangerous condition in question as a washout extending entirely across the width of the roadway, estimating that it was between six and eight feet long and four to six feet deep.