C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
CI TY OF ELPASO, Ap pe lla nt,
v. JACK I E LYN

N WI L KI NS, I nd ivi du a lly and a s Ind e pe nd e nt E xec utr ix of the Es tate of JAC K FREDE RI C BLACKHAM, and on B e ha lf of a ll Wr on g fu l D e a th B e ne fi c iari e s, Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 00 87 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw #3 of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2002-1765 )

O P I N I O N This is an interlocutory

appea l by

the City of El Paso from the de nial of its plea to the jurisdiction of Appellee s’ claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act for wr ong ful death. On May 6, 2000, at appr ox imately 5:10 a.m., Mr. B lackham called 9- 1-1, re quested the police g o to his house, and then hungup. The c all taker identified it as a hig h priority call and immediately

sent the information to the police dispatcher . A police unit did not arrive until two and half hours later . Mr. B lackha m was found de ad; he ha d committed suicide. The r esponding office rs stated in their de position t hat a c all pendingfor a couple of hours was not unusual, but was not ty

pical either . On wee kends, units are very busy , and it is common to come in the morning , and have to “clea n up the mess from the nig ht before . . . .” The Appe llees broug ht suit seeking da mag es under

Sections 101.021, 101.0215, 101.055, and 101.062 of the Texas Civi l Practice and Remedie s Code. A hea ring was he ld on the City of-2-

El Paso’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgme nt on March 9, 2007. T he plea to the jurisdiction was denied, a nd no ruling was made on the motion for summary judgme nt. The City bring s this int erloc utory

appea l from the denia l of Appellant’s ple a to the jurisdiction b a s e d o ng o v e r n m e n t a l i m mun i ty. Municipalities are immune from suit under the doc trine of sove reig n immunit y unless the L eg islature has e x pressly waived immunity
. Dallas County Mental Health &Mental Retardation v. Bossley , 968 S.W .2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1998). A trial cour t lacks subject matter

jurisdiction when
a ca use of a ction is barre d by sovere ign immunity , and dismissal with prejudice is prope r. Se pu lv e da v . Co un ty

of E l P as o , 170 S.W .3d 605, 610 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2005, pet. de nied). citing Cit y of Austin v. L.S. Ranch, Ltd. , 970 S.W .2d 750, 752 (Tex.App.--Austin 1998, no pet.). Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we r eview de novo
. Sepulve da , 170 S.W .3d at 610, citing Cit

y of Saginaw v. Carter , 996 S.W .2d 1, 2 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). The pla intiff has the burde n to alleg e fa cts aff irmatively

demonstratingthe trial court ha s subject matter jurisdiction. Id . We consider the a lleg ations in the petition as true, and construe the jurisdictional pleading s liberally in the plaintiff’s fa

vor and look to the plea der’ s intent. Sepulve da , 170 S.W .3d at 610, citing Cit y of Saginaw , 9 96 S.W. 2d a t 2- 3; Texas As so c iat ion of B us ine

ss v . Te x as Ai r Co ntrol B oa rd , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). A cour t decidinga plea

to the jurisdiction, however , is not required to look solely to the pleading s, but may consider e vidence and must do so when nec essar y to resolve the jur isdictional issues raised. Bland Indepe ndent School District v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). Th e statut e pr ov ide s in

re le va nt p art : A g overnme ntal unit in the state is liable for:-3- . . . (2 ) pe rs on a l in

jur y and de a th s o c a

us e d b y a c on dit ion

or us e of tang ibl e pe rs on a l or

re a l pr op e rt

y if the g ov e rnme nta l un it w ou ld, we re it a pr ivate person, be liable to the claimant a ccor ding to Te x as law. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . §101.021(2)( Ver non 2005). In order to establish waiver

under Sec tion 101.021(2) of the A ct, Appellee s rely on an alleg ation that the inadequate condition of the c ommunications sy stem contributed to the dela y which ca used the de ath of Mr. B lackham. To proper ly state a c laim involving the condition of proper ty , it is sufficient to alleg e that def ective or inadequate prope rty

contributed to the injury
. City of El Paso v. Hernandez , 16 S.W .3d 409, 417 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2000, pet. de nied). In App e lle e s’ fi rs t ame nd e d p e tit ion , th e c la ims are ba se d o n th e City ’s de lay e d r e sp on se to Mr. Bla ckham’ s emerg ency call. It is asserted that the f ailure to a ct was c aused by a condition or use of tang ible persona l or rea l property , and as a proxi mate re sult of the delay he did not
rec eive a ppropriate medical c are or assistance , which re sulted in him t akinghis own life. Howeve r, the Appe llees pled no a ffirmative fac ts of the condition or use of the communication sy stem. At the hea

ringon the plea to jurisdiction, the Appe llees ar g ued that ca lls were not responde d to for hours, whic h is condition of the communication sy stem itself. There are no fac ts or evidenc e alleg ed that ther e wa s a problem with the tele phones or c omputer sy stems used. In Hernande

z , th e re wa s e vid e nc e that du ri ngthe de lay , th a t th e ph on e lin e s at E MS b e c ame so busy that the additional ca lls were f orwa rded to the f

ire de partment, but there was no a lleg ation and no evide nce that any

calls re lated to the ca se we re f orwa rded to the f

ire de partment or that thi s c on dit ion

of the sy ste m c on tr ibute d to the de lay , a s su c h, the c la im d id n ot f a ll w ith in Section 101.021(2). Hernande z , 16 S.W .3d at 417. This Court also held that a c omplaint about-4-

a dela y in the dispatch of a

transport ambulance w as a non- use alleg ation of the c ommunication sy stem, which does not wa ive immunity
. Id . In City of H ida lgo Am bu lan c e Se rv ic e v . Li ra , one of our s ist e r c ourt s h e ld t

hat a n a lle g a tio n r e g ard inga

fa ilure to d isp a tc h a

n ambu lanc e wa s n ot a claim about the use or misuse of tang ible proper ty but rather

the conve y ance or non-c onvey ance of information. City

of H ida lgo Am bu lan c e Se rv ic e v . Li ra , 17 S.W .3d 300, 304 (Tex.App.-- Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.). The a lleg ation of the inade quate c ondition of the “communication sy stem” is based on the fa ilure to t ime ly

dis patc h a

po lic e un it i n r e sp on se to t he c a ll. Th e of

fi c e rs wh o a c tua lly responde d to the call stated that the delay is not unusual especia lly if there was a

busy night since at times there c ould be as little as three units patrolling. This fa ilure to dispatch involved the conveyance of information, which is not tangible pe rsonal or r eal pr operty . Information is an abstrac t conce pt, lackingcorpor eal, phy sical, or pa lpable qualities. Univ. of Texas Me d. Branch at G alv esto n v . York, 871 S.W .2d 175, 178-79 (Te x . 1994). People, likewise, a re not pe rsonal or
rea l property , so the ca ll takers, dispatche rs, and of fice rs ca nnot be consider ed as a

condition or use of tang ible proper

ty . See H ernandez , 16 S.W .3d at 417. The phone s and computer s are tang ibl e , b ut t

he re are no a lle g a tio ns or e vid e nc e tha

t th e y we re in a ny de fe c tiv e or

ina de qu a te
c on dit ion or that th e ph on e s o r c omp ute rs we re mis us e d. Th e “ c omm un ic a tio n s y ste m” Appellee s argue is inadequate is not tang ible proper ty , and does not fa ll within t he wa iver of immunit y statute. The c omplaint of use of prope rty is a non-use c omplaint, which likewise does not come within the statute. We sustain the City ’s I ssues One a nd Two. Given the dispositi on of the two issues, we ne ed not addr ess the City ’s other issues r aised. Havingsustained the City ’s I ssues One a nd Two, we reve rse the tr ial court’s or der-5-

denying the plea to jurisdiction and dismiss the cause w ith prejudice.

May 15, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.