City of League City v. Christobelle Leblanc and Stanford Leblanc
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4664, 2015 WL 2147964, 467 S.W.3d 616 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act is not waived for discretionary design decisions, and a condition is not a "special defect" if it is a longstanding, permanent feature of the original design, rather than a temporary obstruction or excavation on a highway, road, or street.
Facts:
- On December 4, 2010, Christobelle LeBlanc attended a parade in League City, Texas.
- While walking near F.M. 518, approximately eight feet from the curb and near a worn path used by pedestrians, Christobelle stepped into a storm sewer drain.
- The storm sewer drain was covered with a grate, not a solid cover, through which Christobelle stepped, breaking her ankle.
- The storm sewer drain, its grate, and the lighting in the area were designed and installed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) around 1985.
- At the time of Christobelle's injury, the drain and grate were in the exact condition and location as originally specified and installed by TxDOT.
- The storm drain never had a solid cover; it was always designed and installed with the metal grate that was in place.
Procedural Posture:
- Christobelle and Stanford LeBlanc sued the City of League City and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas (trial court), alleging negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
- The LeBlancs' claims against TxDOT were dismissed due to non-compliance with notice provisions of the TTCA.
- The City of League City filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction in the trial court, asserting sovereign immunity.
- The trial court denied the City's Plea to the Jurisdiction.
- The City of League City (Appellant) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, with Christobelle and Stanford LeBlanc as Appellees.
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 Texas Tort Claims Act waive a city's sovereign immunity for injuries resulting from a storm sewer drain designed and installed by the state, where the alleged defect is the drain's original design (a grate instead of a solid cover) and not a lack of maintenance, and the drain is located off the main thoroughfare, thus not qualifying as a special defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Sherry Radack
No, the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive the City of League City's sovereign immunity for injuries resulting from the storm sewer drain because the alleged defect was a discretionary design decision by TxDOT, not a maintenance issue by the City, and the storm drain did not constitute a special defect. The court agreed with the City that the LeBlancs' claim constituted a complaint about an improper design, not a lack of maintenance. Maintenance involves preserving a highway as it was originally designed and constructed, while LeBlanc's pleadings explicitly complained about "the absence of the storm drain cover" and the spacing of its grid bars. Uncontroverted evidence showed the storm drain was designed by TxDOT with the existing grate and never had a solid cover. Design decisions for public works are discretionary functions for which governmental immunity is not waived under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.056(2). Furthermore, the storm drain did not present a "special defect" as defined by the TTCA. The court distinguished Harris Co. v. Smoker, where a missing sewer cover was deemed a special defect, because in that case, the defect was a missing cover that was part of the original design (a maintenance issue), the sewer extended into the street, and its condition was not longstanding. In contrast, the storm drain here never had a cover, was located eight feet from the curb (not extending into the street), and had been in the same condition since its installation in 1985, making it a longstanding, routine, or permanent condition, which does not qualify as a special defect.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict interpretation of the Texas Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, particularly regarding the distinction between maintenance issues and discretionary design decisions, and the narrow definition of "special defects." It clarifies that claims challenging original design choices typically do not overcome immunity, and that for a condition to be a "special defect," it must be akin to a temporary obstruction or excavation directly on the thoroughfare, rather than a permanent feature off to the side, even if it poses a danger. This ruling limits governmental liability for long-standing infrastructure designs, placing a higher burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate actual neglect of maintenance or a true "special defect" as statutorily and judicially defined.
