City of Tyler v. Likes
962 S.W.2d 489, 1997 WL 760284 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mental anguish damages based solely on negligent property damage are not compensable as a matter of law. The proper remedy for negligent harm to property is economic damages measured by the diminution in value, which can include the reasonable special value of items with primarily sentimental worth.
Facts:
- The City of Tyler constructed a drainage culvert system in 1925 and 1938 near what would later be Adeline Likes's property.
- On April 5, 1986, heavy rains caused an open drainage channel on Adeline Likes's property to overflow.
- Floodwaters, carrying a neighbor's landscape timber, crashed through a window of Likes's home while she was asleep upstairs.
- Three and a half feet of water and debris entered the lower floor of her house.
- The flood ruined the walls, carpet, furniture, and assets of her interior decorating business.
- The water also destroyed personal records, family correspondence, photographs, keepsakes, and damaged her two automobiles.
- Likes did not suffer any physical injury as a result of the flood.
Procedural Posture:
- Adeline Likes sued the City of Tyler in a state trial court for negligence, nuisance, and unconstitutional taking related to flood damage.
- Likes amended her complaint to add a claim for $150,000 in mental anguish damages.
- The City of Tyler moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity.
- The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- Likes (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the entire case for trial, holding that Likes's mental anguish was a compensable personal injury under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
- The City of Tyler (petitioner) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 a plaintiff have a common law claim for mental anguish damages resulting solely from the negligent damage to or loss of their property?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Chief Justice
No, a plaintiff does not have a common law claim for mental anguish damages resulting solely from negligent damage to property. Texas law does not recognize a general legal duty to avoid negligently inflicting mental anguish. Recovery for mental anguish is typically limited to specific categories of cases, such as those involving intentional or malicious conduct, serious bodily injury, a breach of duty in a special relationship, or injuries of a shocking nature like wrongful death, none of which apply here. For negligent property damage, the law provides an adequate remedy through economic damages, which include the market value of the property or the cost of repair. For items of sentimental worth, the owner’s feelings are considered in assessing the special value of the property itself, not as a basis for a separate mental anguish claim.
Dissenting - Spector, Justice
This opinion does not directly address the issue of mental anguish but disagrees with the majority's conclusion regarding sovereign immunity for negligent maintenance. The dissent argues that the 1987 legislative amendment, which reclassified storm sewer operation as a governmental function, was unconstitutionally applied retroactively to Adeline Likes's claim. Likes's cause of action vested when the flood occurred in 1986, at which time the City was not immune from suit for negligent maintenance of a proprietary function. Applying the 1987 law to bar her claim, which was filed after the law's effective date but within the original statute of limitations, deprives her of a vested right in violation of the Texas Constitution's prohibition on retroactive laws.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes in Texas that economic loss is the sole remedy for negligent property damage, precluding recovery for emotional distress. It solidifies a bright-line rule that limits the scope of damages in negligence cases, providing predictability for potential defendants and preventing juries from awarding damages based on subjective emotional harm. The case carefully distinguishes compensation for the sentimental value of an item (as part of property damages) from compensation for the emotional distress caused by its loss (which is not recoverable). This holding significantly narrows the path for mental anguish claims, reinforcing that such damages are exceptional and reserved for specific categories of egregious or physically injurious torts.
