Suarez v. City of Texas City
No. 13-0947
Case Summary written by Katherine Mendiola, Staff Member.
JUSTICE GUZMAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This premises liability case was brought against Texas City (City) for the deaths of petitioner’s husband and twin daughters at a man-made peninsula off the coast of Texas City into Galveston Bay (Dike). The Dike had been closed for two years due to damage sustained from Hurricane Ike and had only been re-opened for a month before the tragedy occurred. The Suarez family paid the entrance fee and the two nine-year-olds, still dressed in street clothes, entered the water and shortly thereafter were pulled into deeper water and were unable to stay afloat. Despite the father’s rescue attempts, the father and daughters died. There were no signs in the area that prohibited swimming or warned of any dangers. The mother brought a claim under the Tort Claims Act and the Wrongful Death Statute alleging the City had actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous conditions that were created due to artificial and natural conditions on the beach. Therefore, governmental immunity was waived.
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the basis that immunity was not waived under the Tort Claims Act because the family was a recreational user, and under the circumstances the City did not owe a duty. The trial court denied the plea, and the City subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal on the same basis. The court of appeals granted the appeal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence the City had subjective awareness of the dangerous conditions.
Issue: Did the municipality waive its governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act, limited by the recreational use statute, when it failed to warn recreational users of dangers on the man-made peninsula?
The Court acknowledged that by applying the recreational use statute in this case, liability is limited to claims of gross negligence because of recreational users’ status as trespassers. In order to adequately show gross negligence, there must be objective evidence of an extreme degree of risk and that the City knew of the risk, but proceeded with conscious indifference. The Court, assuming arguendo that there was an extreme risk, did not find sufficient evidence that the City was aware of the risk at the time of the accident. The only evidence offered was circumstantial and did not rise to the requisite level of reasonable support for its conclusion. Without evidence of gross negligence, the City retained its immunity from suit and the claim was properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.