 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dallas County v. Wadley8/1/2005
Before Justices Morris, Lang, and Mazzant
In this case, we must decide whether an overloaded elevator in a Dallas County jail constitutes a premises defect waiving Dallas County's immunity from suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 101.021(2), .022(a) (Vernon 2005). The trial court denied the County's plea to the jurisdiction, and the County brings this interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). The County brings five issues asserting the trial court erred in denying (1-3) the County's plea to the jurisdiction that asserted the County is immune from suit in this case, (4) the County's first amended motion to dismiss the suit, and (5) the County's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal of the denial of the County's first amended motion to dismiss the suit and the denial of the County's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and we affirm the denial of the County's plea to the jurisdiction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2000, appellees were inmates in Decker Detention Center, one of the County's jails. A guard put them and fifteen other inmates in an elevator car to move them from the fifth floor to the third floor to use the jail's recreational facilities. Including the guard, the car contained eighteen men. The elevator had maximum weight capacity of 3000 pounds. Instead of stopping at the third floor, the car fell to the basement, and it took a couple of hours to extricate the men from the elevator car. Appellees alleged they suffered physical injuries in the incident.
Appellees sued the County. Their allegations included that the County's employees ordered them to ride in an overloaded elevator, failed to warn them that the elevator was overloaded, failed to properly maintain the elevators, and failed to inspect the elevators to determine the load capacity. Included in appellees' allegations was the following:
"In addition, the condition of the elevators created an unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff , and the Defendant knew of the condition or should have known of the condition. Further pleading, the Plaintiff at all times [were] unaware of the dangerous condition."
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Before considering the merits of the appeal, we first determine the extent of our jurisdiction over the rulings the County appeals. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998). We strictly construe statutes giving us jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals. Potter County Attorney's Office v. Stars & Stripes Sweepstakes, L.L.C., 121 S.W.3d 460, 464 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, no pet.); Am. Online, Inc. v. Williams, 958 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ).
Section 51.014 of the civil practice and remedies code provides, "A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that: . . . (8) grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit . . . ." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8). Clearly, we have jurisdiction over the denial of the County's plea to the jurisdiction. The County asserts we also have jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(8) to review the denial of its no-evidence summary judgment motion and its first amended motion to dismiss. The County argues we should look beyond the style of the documents to their substance in determining whether they are pleas to the jurisdiction. Having reviewed the substance of those docu
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|