ASHLEY WILLIAMS, VOL. 55 STAFF MEMBER

In Gulf Coast Center. v. Curry Daniel Curry sued Gulf Coast Center (GC Center), a governmental entity that provides various services to the Galveston area, including bus transportation, to recover for personal injuries sustained when Curry was hit by one of GC Center’s busses. Despite Gulf Coast being found negligent, because it is a governmental unit, it is immune from suit and/or liability. The question facing the court was when a governmental unit is being subjected to suit under the Tort Claims Act, what should be the appropriate cap on the amount of damages awarded?

At the trial level, a jury found Gulf Coast negligent and awarded Mr. Curry $216,000. However, Gulf Coast argued that the Tort Claims Act caps its liability at $100,000. That assertion was overruled by the trial court and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Texas has reversed and remanded so that the trial court can make a judgment in accordance with the Act.

The Supreme Court of Texas acknowledged two principles of sovereign immunity in its analysis: (1) immunity from suit and (2) immunity from liability. Immunity from suit entirely bars an action against the State unless the State itself consents. Immunity from liability, however, protects the State from judgment even if the legislature has expressly consented to the suit. The legislature waives governmental immunity for certain tort claims through the Tort Claims Act. Specifically, Section 101.023 of the Tort Claims Act limits the amount of governmental liability, and the applicable cap depends on the type of governmental unit being sued.

Section 101.023 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code states that a governmental unit’s liability for personal injury claims is limited to either $100,000 per person (if the defendant is a unit of local government or an emergency service organization) or $250,000 per person (if the defendant is the state government or municipality).

It was therefore concluded that, because the damages caps implicate jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden to establish which cap applies. Here, Curry did not satisfy his burden to prove that the $250,000 cap applies. Curry would have needed to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction and establish a waiver of governmental immunity. Because there was no evidence to support the higher cap, the trial court was barred from rendering a judgment exceeding the $100,000 cap in the first place.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Texas found that the trial court has jurisdiction to render a judgment exceeding the governmental unit damages cap, but Curry failed to establish which cap applies. The reasoning behind this judgment comes from Section 101.023 of the Texas Tort Claims Act. There, it was determined, limitations of liability are not an affirmative defense, rather the limitations implicate the trial court’s jurisdiction. Thus, a trial court must determine whether and to what extent the Tort Claims Act waives immunity.

Gulf Coast Ctr. v. Curry, No. 20-0856, 2022 WL 17998210 (Tex. Dec. 30, 2022).