 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Willis5/10/2005
Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Lang-Miers
Joyce Willis (Willis) sued Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for personal injuries sustained when she fell in an attempt to exit a DART bus. DART appeals the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity. In its sole issue on appeal, DART contends that the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction because Willis failed to plead a cause of action within an exception to governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. We affirm.
Background
Willis filed her Original Petition against DART and an unknown bus driver. She claimed that on October 3, 2000, she was a passenger on a DART bus. When the bus driver came to a stop on the route, Willis claims the driver negligently failed to properly stop the bus close to the curb for her to exit. She fell and injured herself while attempting to exit the bus. She stated that her injuries were caused by DART's negligent failure to properly train, monitor, and/or supervise its
employee. Willis did not mention governmental immunity in her original petition. After filing an Original Answer and Special Exceptions, DART filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Special Exceptions. The district court denied the plea to the jurisdiction without prejudice. But it sustained DART's Special Exceptions, complaining that Willis's petition failed to state a cause of action within an exception to governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court ordered Willis to file an amended pleading to assert claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Willis filed a First Amended Original Petition, in response to which DART filed a Second Plea to the Jurisdiction. Willis then filed a Second Amended Original Petition, and DART filed an Amended Second Plea to the Jurisdiction, to which it attached Willis's deposition. The district court denied DART's plea to the jurisdiction.
Plea to the Jurisdiction
A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). To prevail on a plea to the jurisdiction, a party must show that even if all the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings are taken as true, an incurable defect apparent on the face of the pleadings makes it impossible for the pleadings to confer jurisdiction on the trial court. Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.). The claims may form the context in which a dilatory plea is raised, but the plea should be decided without delving into the merits of the case. Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554. We consider the facts alleged by the plaintiff and, to the extent it is relative to the jurisdictional issue, the evidence submitted by the parties. Tex. Dep't. of Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Tex. 2001); Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554.
Sovereign Immunity
Governmental immunity from suit defeats a court's subject matter jurisdiction. Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003). In a suit against a governmental unit, the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity. Id. We must examine the plaintiff's pleadings to determine if governmental immunity has been waived. Miller, 51 S.W.3d at 587. No one disputes that DART is a governmental unit under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Therefore, we will review Willis's pleadings and the evidence attached to DART's plea to the jurisdiction to determine if Willis's claim falls within an exception to gover
Page 1 2 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|