 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority v. Reunion Hotel & Tower Joint Venture6/16/1998
Affirmed
On Appeal from the 116th District CourtDallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 95-12160-F
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority (DART) appeals the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. In a sole issue, DART questions whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit in the absence of a statutory waiver of immunity. Within its argument, DART asserts the complaint of appellee Reunion Hotel & Tower Joint Venture (Reunion) fails to state a negligence claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act and fails to state a claim for inverse condemnation. Because we conclude Reunion sufficiently states a negligence claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the plea to the jurisdiction as to the negligence claim.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
DART hired Neosho Construction Company to construct a light rail station at Union Station, in downtown Dallas. The site of the light rail station is adjacent to the Reunion Tower and the Hyatt-Regency Hotel. Reunion entered into an agreement with DART to allow Neosho access to the Hyatt-Regency Hotel site to excavate and perform construction work on that site. As part of the construction project, Neosho excavated land adjacent to the Tower. During a heavy rain storm on March 12 and 13, 1995, the Reunion Tower base flooded, causing damage to the escalator and the Tower base interior.
In its second amended original petition, Reunion alleges the following specific acts as the basis for its claims:
1. Failing to properly cover the hole in which they were digging;
2. Failing to properly utilize sump pumps to evacuate the water from the hole in which they were digging;
3. Failing to use the proper size sump pumps to evacuate the water from the hole in which they were digging;
4. Failing to use the proper type of sump pump to evacuate the water from the hole in which they were digging;
5. Failing to properly provide a drainage system for the water from the hole in which they were digging;
6. Failing to shore up the walls of the hole in which they were digging to prevent a collapse which rendered any sump pumps useless[;]
7. Failing to properly supervise the construction in question. More specifically, Defendants were negligent in failing to assure through proper supervision that steps were taken to prevent damage to the property of third parties.
DART filed a plea to the jurisdiction, complaining there was no specific statutory waiver of governmental immunity and requesting the trial court dismiss the case. The trial court denied DART's plea to the jurisdiction.
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
In its sole issue before the Court, DART contends the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the suit against DART in absence of a statutory waiver of immunity. First, DART argues Reunion's allegations negate any legal and factual basis for Reunion to assert a negligence claim under the Texas Torts Claim Act as a waiver of governmental immunity. Second, DART asserts Reunion's pleadings and the stipulated facts of the case destroy any legal basis Reunion may have to assert an inverse condemnation claim as a waiver of governmental immunity. Reunion contends it has properly pleaded a cause of action against DART. We disagree with DART that there has been no statutory waiver of governmental immunity.
Standard of Review
A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea and its purpose is to defeat the cause of action without defeating the merits of the case. See Cox v. Klug, 855 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tex.
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|