City of Houston v. Cavazos
1991 WL 95422, 811 S.W.2d 231 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard for establishing gross negligence against a municipality in a wrongful death action not seeking punitive damages is "conscious indifference to the rights or welfare" of the affected person. A stricter standard requiring malice or evil intent by a policymaking official applies only when punitive damages are sought against the municipality.
Facts:
- The City of Houston controlled an area in Eisenhower Park that included a submerged concrete slab used by the public to cross a river for fishing.
- The water covering the slab was shallow but murky, concealing an abrupt and invisible drop-off to water 15 feet deep.
- The City was aware of the extreme danger, as between one and three drownings occurred at this exact location annually for at least five years preceding the incident.
- A Park Police Sergeant had previously installed warning signs due to the danger, but the City removed them five years before the drowning and never replaced them.
- The Cavazos family, seeing numerous other people including small children safely wading across the slab, assumed it was safe.
- While attempting to wade across with his family, Edmundo Cavazos slipped from the slab, was swept by the current into the deep water, and drowned.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe and Viola Cavazos, parents of the deceased, sued the City of Houston in a Texas state trial court for wrongful death.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found the City of Houston was grossly negligent and assigned 80% of the fault to the City.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Cavazos family based on the jury's verdict.
- The City of Houston, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the "conscious indifference" standard, rather than a stricter standard requiring malicious or evil intent, apply to a gross negligence claim against a municipality in a wrongful death suit where punitive damages are not sought?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, Justice.
Yes. The "conscious indifference" standard applies to gross negligence claims against a municipality when punitive damages are not sought. The court held that the usual test for gross negligence, as established in Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, requires showing a defendant knew about a peril but demonstrated through acts or omissions that they did not care. The stricter standard from City of Gladewater v. Pike, which requires showing maliciousness or evil intent by a policymaking official, is an exception that applies only when a plaintiff seeks to recover punitive (exemplary) damages against a city. Because the Cavazos family did not seek punitive damages, the Burk Royalty standard was the correct one for the trial court to apply. The evidence, including the City's long-term knowledge of multiple annual drownings at the site and its failure to maintain warning signs, was more than sufficient to support the jury's finding of conscious indifference.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the two-tiered standard for gross negligence claims against municipalities in Texas, making a crucial distinction based on the remedy sought. By confining the stricter 'malice or evil intent' standard to cases involving punitive damages, the court maintains a more accessible path for plaintiffs seeking only compensatory damages for wrongful death or personal injury. This ruling provides predictability for future litigants, establishing that proof of a city's subjective awareness of a known, extreme danger and its subsequent failure to act is sufficient to establish liability, without needing to prove a higher level of culpability like malice unless punishment is at issue.
