### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00212- CV

City of Austin , Texas, Appellan t

v. Jam il Cherry, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 12- 0103 14, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Whil e appellee J amil Cherry wa s u s i n g t he weig ht room as a g uest at a rec rea tion
cente r owned and maintained by appellant the City of Austin, a bar fell from the weig ht machine he

was using and struck Cherry on the fore head, injuring him. Cherry sued the City for neg lige nce, and the C ity filed a plea to the j urisdiction on the basis of sovereig n immunit y . The trial court denied the City ’s plea, and the City appea led. We w ill re verse the trial court’s denial of the City ’s plea to the jurisdiction and re mand to allow Cherr y an opportunity

to replea d.

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Cherry and a friend went to the Montopolis Recr eation Center to w ork out. Cherry

was interested in becoming a member at the rec rea tion cente r and was using it for fre e to deter mine his interest level. Cherry worke d out in the fac ility ’s weight ro o m for approximately 30 minutesbefor e the acc ident t h at fo rms the basis for the underly ing suit. When he used the bench- press machine, the bar f

ell off the ma chine a

nd struck Cherr

y ’s hea d, injuring him. Cherry orig inally sued the City based on a premises defe ct theory , see Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code § 101.022(a) , ag ainst which t h e C ity filed a plea to the jurisdiction. Cherry later amende d his petition to remove the premises defe ct claim and instead pleade d a claim alleg ing that th e d e f e c ti v e c o n d it io n o f th e w e ig h t ma c h in e c a

u s e d h is in ju r ie s
. S e e id

. § 1 0 1

. 0 2 1 ( 2 )

. T h e Ci ty th e n supplemented its orig inal plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. This appea l followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Gene rally , whether a trial c ourt has subjec t-matter jurisdiction is a question of law.
Te x a s Na tu r a l R e s
. Co n s e r v a ti o n Co m m ’n v
. I

T- D a v y , 7 4 S. W. 3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 5 ( T e x. 2 0 0 2 )

. A p la in ti f f ’ s pleading s must alleg e fac ts sufficie nt to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. Texas Ass’n of Bus.

v. Texas Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). I f a plaintiff’s pleading s do not contain fac ts sufficie nt to aff

irmativ el y d em o nstrate jurisdiction, but also do not demonstrate incura ble defe cts in jurisdiction, then the issue is one of pleading sufficie ncy , and the plaintiff must be allowed the opportunity to amend. Texas Dep’ t of Parks & W ildlif e v. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004). I f the pleading s aff irmatively neg ate jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be
g rante d without allowing the pla intiff an opportunity to amend. Id. at 227.
I f , o n th e o th e r h a

n d , a p le a to th e ju

r is d ic ti o n c h a ll e n g e s th e e xis te n c e o f ju r is d ic ti o n a l fac ts, then courts mus t consider the evidenc e subm itted by the parties to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Id. When the g overnme nt defe ndant asser ts there is no jurisdiction and supports that

asser tion with evidenc e in a matter wher e the underly ing merits and the jurisdi ct i o nal inquiry

2intertwine, a plaintiff is mere ly require d “to show that there is a disputed materia l fac t reg arding the

jurisdictional issue” to defe at a plea to the jurisdiction. Id. at 228. Courts must “take as true all evidenc e favor able to the nonmovant” and “indulg e ever y rea sonable infere nce an d resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor .” Id.

DISCUSSIO N

Cherry ’s plea d in g s , o n th e ir fac e, failed to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Cherry pleade d a claim alleg ing that the d ef ective condition of the weig ht machine at issue cause d his injuries. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.021(2). To alleg e fac ts sufficie nt to establish such

a claim and invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction, howeve r, Cherry was require d to plead that the

w e ig h t ma c h in e a

t is s u e la c k e d a

n in te g r a l s a f e ty c o mp o n e n t. S

e e Ci ty o f N. R ic h la n d H

il ls v
. F r ie n d , 370 S.W .3d 3 6 9 , 372-73 (Tex. 2012); Texas Sch. for the Blind & Visually Impaired v. Dugosh , No. 03-07-00681- CV, 2010 WL 1170223, at *14 (Te x . App.—Austin Mar. 26, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.). He failed to do so.

Cherry ’s pleading s, while defe ctive, do not demonstrate incura ble defe ct s in jurisdiction. As the supreme court noted in Miranda , if the pleading s do not contain fac ts sufficie nt
to a f f ir ma ti v e ly d e mo n s tr a

te ju r is d ic ti o n , b u t a ls o d o n o t d e mo n s tr a te in c u r a b le d e f e c ts in ju r is d ic ti o n , t h en t h e issue is one of pleading sufficie ncy , and the plaintiff must be allowed the opportu n i t y t o amend. 133 S.W.3d at 226-27.

3Consist ent with this instruction from Mir a n d a , we m ust rema

nd this case to the trial court to allow Cherry the opportunity to amend his pleading s and sufficie ntly i n v o k e the trial court’ s jurisdiction. 1

CONCLUSION

For these rea sons, we reve rse the order of the trial court deny ing the City of Austin’s plea to the jurisdiction a

nd rema nd this case to allow Cherry to amend his pleading s to a lleg e fac ts sufficie nt to invoke the trial court’ s jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield
Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Jul y

21, 2015

The City filed its plea to the jurisdiction befor e Che rr y am en d ed his pleading s to alleg e 1 a defe ctive condition of tan gi ble persona l proper ty

. As a result, the City ’s arg uments befor e the trial court an d t h i s C o u rt cente red on whether Cherry ’s case is rea lly a defe ctive condition case or a premises defe ct case , as he orig inally pleade d. On the rec ord befor e us, we express no opinion on this iss ue. 4