From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley

Supreme Court of Texas
Apr 17, 2003
104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003)

Summary

holding bus passenger’s injuries inflicted by another passenger after they left bus did not arise from operation or use of bus

Summary of this case from Tex. S. Univ. v. Mouton

Opinion

No. 02-0177.

Argued on November 14, 2002.

Opinion Delivered: April 17, 2003.

On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas.

Hyattye O. Simmons, Dallas, for Petitioner.

John P. Knouse, Law Office of Knouse Knouse, Dallas, for Respondent.


In this appeal we must decide whether sovereign immunity bars a suit against a transit authority for injuries inflicted by one bus passenger on another. The plaintiff sued Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for personal injuries he sustained when another passenger attacked him after both had left the bus. The trial court granted DART's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the case based on DART's assertion of sovereign immunity. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Whitley's injuries arose from the operation or use of the DART bus because the "driver chose to force Whitley off the bus and then dropped his attacker off near where Whitley was waiting, and decided to go on without returning to pick up Whitley as promised." 66 S.W.3d 472, 476. Therefore, the court held that sovereign immunity had been waived and that the trial court had jurisdiction. Id. at 476-77. We disagree, concluding that Whitley's injuries did not arise from the operation or use of the DART bus. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Harold Whitley has cerebral palsy. It affects his ability to speak, impairs his movement, and causes him physical pain. He depends on public transportation and is a regular passenger on DART's buses. On September 22, 1997, Whitley was riding on a DART bus when a woman, later identified as Mary Burkley, sat down next to him in the seat directly behind the driver. She began verbally harassing Whitley, eventually threatening him with a box cutter. Whitley grabbed Burkley to restrain her. Other passengers separated the two, escorting Burkley to the back of the bus. Burkley again attempted to attack Whitley with the box cutter but was rebuffed by another passenger.

Disturbed by the commotion, the DART bus driver stopped the bus. He told Whitley to exit, saying he would come back for him in a few minutes. As Whitley exited, Burkley threatened to kill him. Burkley then exited the bus herself about two blocks past where the driver had put Whitley off.

Burkley went directly home to her son and his friends, recruiting them to join her vendetta against Whitley. Finding Whitley where the bus had left him, the group beat him severely, putting him in the hospital for ten days.

Whitley sued only DART, alleging negligence. DART filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, claiming that sovereign immunity barred Whitley's suit because his injuries did not arise from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle. The trial court agreed, granted the plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed Whitley's suit. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Whitley's injuries arose from the use of the bus. 66 S.W.3d at 476.

A unit of state government is immune from suit and liability unless the state consents. Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999). Governmental immunity from suit defeats a court's subject matter jurisdiction. Id. In a suit against a governmental unit, the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity. See Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Tex. 2001); Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). To determine if the plaintiff has met that burden, "we consider the facts alleged by the plaintiff and, to the extent it is relevant to the jurisdictional issue, the evidence submitted by the parties." Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. White, 46 S.W.3d 864, 868 (Tex. 2001). No one disputes that DART is a governmental unit under the Tort Claims Act. We will therefore review Whitley's pleadings and the evidence he attached in response to DART's plea and motion to determine if his claim comes within a statutory waiver of immunity.

Under the Tort Claims Act, a governmental unit's sovereign immunity is waived for "property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment if: (A) the property damage, personal injury, or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 101.021. This Court has defined "use" as "`to put or bring into action or service; to employ for or apply to a given purpose.'" Mount Pleasant Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Estate of Lindburg, 766 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tex. 1989) (quoting Beggs v. Tex. Dep't of Mental Health Mental Retardation, 496 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1973, writ ref'd)). Whitley argues that his injuries arise from a use of the bus because the bus driver wrongfully ejected him in a remote and dangerous area of Dallas, allowed Burkley to deboard after she assaulted and threatened him in the driver's presence, and then failed to pick him up as promised. DART counters that Whitley does not allege a "use" of the bus, but rather alleges "nonuse" of the bus, misuse of information, failure to provide protection, or failure to properly supervise passengers.

We agree that Whitley's injuries did not arise from the use of the bus. Rather, his injuries arose from the bus driver's failure to supervise the public, which is insufficient to waive immunity under the Tort Claims Act.

We have consistently required a nexus between the operation or use of the motor-driven vehicle or equipment and a plaintiff's injuries. See, e.g., White, 46 S.W.3d at 869; LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett Indep. Sch. Dist., 835 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex. 1992) ("The phrase `arises from' requires a nexus between the injury negligently caused by a governmental employee and the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or piece of equipment."); Hopkins v. Spring Indep. Sch. Dist., 736 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tex. 1987). This nexus requires more than mere involvement of property. See generally Dallas County Mental Health Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Tex. 1998). Rather, "the [vehicle]'s use must have actually caused the injury." White, 46 S.W.3d at 869 (citing Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 342-43). Thus, as with the condition or use of property, the operation or use of a motor vehicle "does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible." Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 343.

Whitley's allegations are similar to those made in Estate of Garza v. McAllen Independent School District, 613 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In that case, a non-student passenger stabbed a student passenger on a school bus. The court of appeals held that "the injury arose out of the failure to control and supervise the public, and not from the operation or use of a motor vehicle. . . . [A] knife and not the use of the bus was the cause of plaintiffs' damage." Id. at 528; see also Pierson v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 698 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that student's act and not the operation or use of truck and trailer was the cause of plaintiffs' injuries). Similarly, Burkley and her accomplices caused Whitley's injuries, and the driver's failure to supervise Burkley may have contributed, but the operation or use of the bus did not.

Whitley argues that Austin Independent School District v. Gutierrez, 54 S.W.3d 860 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied), and Contreras v. Lufkin Independent School District, 810 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1991, writ denied), should control this case. We disagree. In Gutierrez, a school bus driver honked her horn to signal that the plaintiff could safely cross the street. The court of appeals held that the "bus driver took the affirmative action of honking the horn which may have contributed to the accident." Gutierrez, 54 S.W.3d at 866 (footnote omitted). By contrast, no use of the DART bus in this case contributed to Whitley's injuries. In Contreras, a student was let off a school bus around the corner from her home and was struck by a car while trying to get home. Although Contreras is factually similar, it does not hold that immunity was waived. Rather, the court of appeals reversed defendant's summary judgment because the sole ground on which it was based, that the plaintiff had not pled waiver of immunity, was without merit. Contreras, 810 S.W.2d at 26; see Tarkington Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aiken, 67 S.W.3d 319, 325 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2002, no pet.) (holding that Contreras did not find a waiver of immunity and limiting the case to its procedural facts). Thus, Contreras does not apply to this case.

The gravamen of Whitley's complaint is that Burkley and her cohorts' actions and the bus driver's failure to supervise the public caused his injuries. We recognize that Whitley suffered terrible injuries and that it is unlikely he will recover any meaningful compensation for them under the tort system. But the Legislature has enacted only a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, and the terms of that waiver do not permit Whitley to recover against DART in this case. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Justice ENOCH did not participate.


Summaries of

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley

Supreme Court of Texas
Apr 17, 2003
104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003)

holding bus passenger’s injuries inflicted by another passenger after they left bus did not arise from operation or use of bus

Summary of this case from Tex. S. Univ. v. Mouton

holding that a bus passenger's injuries sustained when another bus passenger attacked him after both left the bus were not injuries that arose from the use of the bus and therefore immunity was not waived

Summary of this case from Hagelskaer v. Tex. Dep't of Transp.

holding that government driver's failure to supervise the public, not the use of the bus, caused passenger's injury, and thus conduct did not fall within waiver of immunity

Summary of this case from Williams v. City of Baytown

holding TTCA waiver did not cover the plaintiff's tort claims because they related to "the bus driver's failure to supervise the public" on a city bus

Summary of this case from Tejano Ctr. for Cmty. Concerns, Inc. v. Olvera

holding that immunity was not waived for bus driver's alleged failure to supervise the public

Summary of this case from Univ. of Texas M.D. v. King

holding injuries of bus passenger who was attacked by another passenger after disembarking from the bus did not arise from the "use" of the bus, but from the driver's failure to supervise the public, and thus Tort Claims Act did not waive governmental immunity to passenger's negligence claim

Summary of this case from Lancer Ins. Co. v. Perez

holding injuries of bus passenger who was attacked by another passenger after disembarking from the bus did not arise from the "use" of the bus, but from the driver's failure to supervise the public, and thus Tort Claims Act did not waive governmental immunity to passenger's negligence claim

Summary of this case from Lancer Ins. Co. v. Perez

holding that plaintiff who was threatened on a public bus by another passenger and then attacked when both exited did not establish waiver of governmental immunity because his injuries did not arise from the use of the bus

Summary of this case from Dimas v. Texas State Uni. System

holding that TTCA's motor-vehicle waiver did not apply to claim whose gravamen was that bus driver's "failure to supervise the public" — by, for example, failing to supervise tortfeasor passenger and failing to return to pick up victim passenger — allowed tortfeasor, who had threatened victim on bus, to assault victim after both had exited

Summary of this case from Sugarland v. Ballard

holding that DART bus driver's ejection of handicapped passenger from bus and failure to return for him as promised, so that he was severely beaten by another passenger who had threatened him in front of driver, was not use of motor vehicle under section 101.021 that proximately caused passenger's injuries

Summary of this case from Archibeque v. North Texas State Hospital-Wichita Falls Campus

finding plaintiff's injuries did not arise from bus driver's use of city bus but from the driver's failure to supervise the public which was insufficient to waive immunity under the Tort Claims Act

Summary of this case from City of Canadian v. Klein

concluding that governmental unit's immunity remained when "no use of the DART bus . . . contributed to [plaintiff]'s injuries"

Summary of this case from Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Salinas

discussing governmental immunity and statutory waiver of immunity under the TTCA

Summary of this case from Hallsville Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia

restating same

Summary of this case from City of Elpaso v. Cangialosi

providing that the nexus requires more than mere involvement of property

Summary of this case from City of Edinburg v. GNJ Realty Invs. LLC

stating that the operation or use of a motor vehicle or property "does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible" (quoting Dallas Cty. Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Tex. 1998) )

Summary of this case from City of Hous. v. Gutkowski

explaining Contreras holding

Summary of this case from Dall. Cnty. Sch. v. Vallet

stating that unit of government is immune unless state consents

Summary of this case from Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Mirasol

discussing governmental immunity and statutory waiver of immunity under TCA

Summary of this case from Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Salinas

noting requirement of "nexus between operation or use of the motor-driven vehicle or equipment and a plaintiff's injuries"

Summary of this case from Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Salinas

noting that vehicle's "'use must have actually caused the injury'" to invoke limited waiver of immunity (quoting White, 46 S.W.3d at 869)

Summary of this case from Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Salinas

explaining that plaintiff bears burden of establishing waiver of immunity under TTCA

Summary of this case from Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Bellinghausen

explaining that plaintiff bears burden of demonstrating waiver of immunity under TTCA

Summary of this case from Bd. of Regents v. Steinbach

requiring plaintiff to demonstrate waiver of immunity under TTCA

Summary of this case from Bd. of Regents v. Steinbach

stating that "the operation or use of a motor vehicle 'does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible.'" (quoting Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 343)

Summary of this case from Northcutt v. City of Hearne
Case details for

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley

Case Details

Full title:DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, Petitioner, v. HAROLD WHITLEY, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Apr 17, 2003

Citations

104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003)

Citing Cases

Montoya v. Houston Independent School District

Governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Tex. Dept. of Parks and…

City of Corpus Christi v. Aguirre Props., Inc.

In a suit against a governmental unit, the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction…