City of San Antonio v Huron, 04-19-00570-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio, June 11, 2020)
This is a vehicle accident/Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”) case where the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.
David L. Arredondo was struck and killed by a San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) vehicle when Arredondo was riding his bicycle. Arredondo failed to stop at a stop sign, and he rode across the unlit intersection. The City sent investigators and a supervisor to the scene, and the driver/officer gave a statement regarding the accident. The investigators took photographs and videos, collected evidence, and filed their reports. No formal written notice of claim was filed, but just over thirteen months after the accident, the family filed suit. The City asserted its immunity from suit for lack of formal or actual notice. The family asserted the City had actual notice due to the investigation and reports. The plea was denied and the City appealed.
“[A]ctual notice exists only when the governmental unit has ‘knowledge of (1) a death, injury, or property damage; (2) the governmental unit’s alleged fault producing or contributing to the death, injury, or property damage; and (3) the identity of the parties involved.’” “[S]ubjective awareness of alleged fault requires neither adjudication of liability nor confession of fault.” But a governmental unit’s subjective awareness of its potential fault is not enough to establish actual notice. The investigation reports, prepared by an SAPD investigator, identifies the officer driving the SAPD vehicle, the decedent, the location, and other facts pertaining to the accident. The only finding of fault in the Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report points to Arredondo. Neither of the two CSI reports gave any indication of fault by any party, and the court expressly did not infer that the City gained any subjective awareness of its alleged fault merely because it conducted an extensive investigation. It is the facts disclosed in the investigation, not the breadth of the investigation alone, that inform the actual notice question. The driving officer’s report, however, was very sparse and noted “I was traveling [southwest] in the #1 lane of Somerset [Road], when I felt something strike my vehicle. I immediately noticed my windshield was damaged and [I] came to an immediate stop.” All persons have the duty to maintain a proper lookout and to observe in a careful manner the traffic and the general environment at and in the vicinity of an intersection. The officer’s affidavit was so sparse, it did not establish he was maintaining a proper lookout. He does not list his speed at the time of the accident or much of anything else. From this evidence, the trial court could have found that the officer did not see Arredondo and it could have concluded that the officer was failing to keep a proper lookout in violation of his duty. As a result, the plea was properly denied. [Comment: This opinion appears to be inconsistent with the burdens attributed to the parties during a plea as the opinion does not go into what evidence was present in response to the plea to establish a failure to keep a proper lookout. The court seems to treat the absence of evidence as a proper submission of contradicting evidence to make an implied finding by the trial court.]
If you would like to read this opinion click here. The panel consists of Justices Alvarez, Chapa and Rios. Opinion by Justice Alvarez.