### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 606 -CV

The Uni ve r sity o f Te xa s , A ppe lla nt

v. Herm elinda Ame zquita , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-G N-03 -0005 78 , HO NORAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N The Unive rsity

of Texas at Austi n (the “University”) appea ls the district court’s orde r denying its plea to the jurisdiction. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C od e Ann. § 5 1. 01 4( a )( 8) (We st 2008). The University

asser ts that sovereign immunit y bars the tor

t claims of appellee , Her

melinda Amezquita. Amezquita sued the University under the Texas Tort Claims Act. SeeTex. Ci v. Prac. & Re m. Code Ann. §§ 101.001-.109 (West 2005 & Supp. 2008) (the “A ct”) . We will reverse the trial court’ s order

and re nder judg ment g rantingthe Univer sity ’s plea.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On Fe bruar

y 23, 2001, Amezquita sustained injuries when she sli p p ed o n a metal plate incor

porate d into a walkwa

y in front of the University ’s base ball stadium. The plate, whic h
se rv e d a s a

rem ov able dr a ina g e tr e nc h c ov e r, wa s sl ipp e ry be c a us e ra in h a d a c c umu late d o n it
.Am e zqu ita or ig ina lly a lle g e d th at th e pla

te wa s b oth

a pr e mis e s d e fe c t and

a sp e c ia l de fe c t, 1 but sh e late r a

me nd e d h e r p e tit ion

to d e le te he r s pe c ia l- de fe c t c la im.

2 Amezquita filed suit in Februa ry 2003, alleg ing that the pl ate was a premises defe ct for which the Un ive rs ity ’s immun ity

ha d b e e n w a ive d und e r t he Ac t. SeeAct § 101.022.

1 Th e Un ive rs ity

fi le d a ple a to t he ju ri sd ictio n a sse rt ingtha t th e pla te wa s n ot a premises de fec t and that eve n if it was, i t s prese nce w as a discr etionary decision for

which the University

reta ined immunity

from suit under se ction 101.056 of the Act. In support of its plea, the University

filed an a ffidavit by

Wil liam Throop, an e ng ineer employ ed by

the Univer sity . The trial
c ourt e xcluded po rt ion s o f T hr oo p’ s a ff ida vit and de nie d th e Un ive rs ity ’s ple a . T he Un ive rs ity perf ecte d this int erloc utory

appea l.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We reviewthe denial of

a plea to the juri s d i cti on de novo. Texas De p’t of Parks &W ildlif e v. M iranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). When a plea c halleng es the e x istence of jurisdictional fac ts, a court should consider rele vant evidenc e subm i t t ed by the par ties when
nece ssary to resolve the jur isdictional issues raised. Id . Where the jurisdictional issue or fa cts do not impli cate the merits of the pla intiff’s ca se, and the fac ts are disp uted, the cour t—not the jury —must make the nec essar y fac t finding s to resolve the jurisdictional issue. See id. (“‘ Whether a dis trict court has subject m atter jurisdiction is a question for the cour t, not a jury , to decide, e ven if the de te rm inatio n r e qu ir e s ma kin gfa c tua l f

ind ing s, un le ss t

he jur isd ic tio na l issu e is i ne xtri c a bly b o un d t o th e m er i t s o f t h e ca s e. ’” ) ( qu o t i n g Cam e ro n v . Ch ild re n’ s H os p. Me d. Ctr

. , 131 F.3d 1167, 11 70 (6 th C ir
. 19 97 ))
. I f, ho we ve r, the fa c ts re le va nt to jur isd ic tio n are un dis pute d, the c ourt sh ou ldHer e, the tria l court’s orde r deny ing the plea to the jurisdiction did not indicate that the 2 c ourt wa s d e fe rr ingits jur isd ic tio na l de te rm inatio n unti l the c a se wa s mo re fu lly de ve lop e d. No r d id Amezquita ur g e a defe rra l of the issue in he r response to the University ’s plea to the j u risdiction. Ac c or din g ly , b e c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt did no t purp or t to e xer c ise its dis c re tio n in t his re g ard , w e wi ll not attempt to apply an abuse -of- discretion standa rd in revie wingthe trial cour t’s denial of por

tions of the plea . In any

event, a s discus s ed b el o w, the re levant fa cts befor e the tria l court we re c on c lus ive , s o f

ull e r d e ve lop me nt o f t

he c a se wo uld

have be e n p ointle ss. 3 make th e ju ri sdic tio na l de te rm inatio n a s a matte r o f l aw b a se d s ole ly on tho se un dis pute d f

a c ts. Id
. at 22 8. B e c a

us e a c ourt sh ou ld no t pr oc e e d wi th a c a se ov e r whic h it ha s n o ju ri sd ic tio n, it s ho uld make the jur isdictional determination as soon as pr actica ble, but has di scre tion to defe r the de cision until the case ha s been more fully develope d. Id . at 227. On a pp e a l, any

fa c t f ind ing s ma de to 2 resolve the jurisdictional issue ma y be cha lleng ed, as a

ny other fa ct finding s, for leg al and f actua l sufficie ncy . This includes implied fact f indings if written finding s and conclusions ar e not issued. Cf
. BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W .3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002).
DI SCU SSIO N The jurisdictional evide nce he re doe s not impl icate the merits of the pla intiff’s ca se: the juri sd ict ion a l is su e c on c e rn s w he the r i nc or po ra tin ga me ta l pl ate int o a

sid e wa lk w a s a dis c re tio na

ry de c isi on , whe re a s th e me ri ts c on c e rn wh e the r the Un ive rs ity a c te d ne g lig e ntl y . T hu s, the trial cour

t was re quired to re solve the jurisdictional issue on the basis of f acts that it found or that
wer e undisputed. See M

iranda , 1 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d at 2 2 6 (c i t i n g Cameron , 131 F.3d at 1170). As plaintiff, Amezquita bore the bur den of pr oving f acts that would e stablish the trial court’s jurisdiction. See Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex as Air Contr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993).4 The Unive rsity

argues that its evidence proves c oncl u s i v el y that it has not waived immunit y under the Act. See Act § 101.021 (discussingwaiver o f immunity). Unde r sec tion 10 1. 05 6 o f t

he Ac t, the State pre serve s its im munity for a n act “ if the law le ave s the per formanc e or nonperf ormanc e of the act to the discretion of the g overnme ntal unit.” Thus, if the State’s ac tion is di scre tionary , it does not waive its immunit y . An ac t is discretionary if it require s exercisingjudgme nt a nd the law does not ma

ndate perf

orming the ac t with such p re ci s ion that nothing is left to discre tion or judgme nt. Design of any pu b l i c work, such as a roadway, is a discretionary function involving many policy decisions, and the gove rnmental entity responsible may not be sued for such decisions
.
State v. Rodriguez , 985 S.W .2d 83, 85 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam) (empha sis ad d ed ) (q uoting Ac t § 101.056(2)) (citations omitted)
. Pl a n s f o r mu la ted by state eng ineer s are para digmatic discretionar y decisions immune f

rom suit. See id. at 86 ; se e als o San c he z v . M ata go rd a Co un ty , 124 S.W .3d 350, 353 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (c hoice of “one de sign ove r anothe r is the essenc e of th e ex er ci s e of discr etion”). This rule applies to plans for a ll manner of public w orks. See, e.g. , Rod ri gue z, 98 5 S.W. 2d at 85 (r oa dw ay s) ; City of R ou nd Ro c k v . S mi th , 687 S.W .2d 300, 303 (T ex . 19 85 ) ( su

bd ivi sio n p lat) ; Perez v . City of Dallas , 180 S.W .3d 906, 913 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2 0 05, no pet.) (tr ash pit); Sanchez , 124 S.W .3d at 353 (bridg e); Berry v . City of Reno , 107 S.W .3d 128, 132-33 (Te x . Ap p . — Fo rt Worth 2003, no pet.) (dra inag e sy stem); University of Texas He alth Scis. Ctr . v. Bruen , 92 S.W .3d 24, 27 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2002, p et
. d enied) (a ud ito ri um r amp) ; Ra mo s v . Te x as De p’ t of Pu b. Sa fe ty , 35 S.W .3d 723, 733 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Di st. ] 200 0, pe t. d e nied) (p ark inglot ); Mitchell v. City of Dallas , 8 5 5 S. W. 2 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 5 ( T e x.Throop wa s an intere sted witness, but we c redit his aff idavit be cause it wa s “cle ar, positive 3 and dire ct, otherw ise cre dible and fr ee f rom contra dictions and inconsistencies, a nd could have been rea dily controve rted.” Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). 5 Ap p . —D a ll a s 1 9 9 3 ) ( p u b li c b u il d in g s an d

o th e r mu n ic ip a l p r e mi s e s), a

ff’d , 870 S.W .2d 21, 37 (Tex. 1994). He re , th e Un ive rs ity ’s e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t h a t t h e Un i v e rs ity

inc or po ra te d a me ta l pl ate int o a sid e wa lk to co ve r a dr a ina g e tr e nc h. Am e zqu ita argue s th at th e Un ive rs ity fa ile d to e sta

bli sh that this action repr esents a disc retionar y decision by

University

eng ineer s. On the contra ry , the aff idavit of eng ineer

Throop, which the University submitt ed in support of i ts plea to the jurisdiction,
e sta bli sh e s ju st tha

t. Throop’s aff

idavit states: “[T] he metal plate Ms. Amezquita alleg edly slipped 3
on wa s a pa rt of the or ig ina l des ig n o f t he Un ive rs ity

ba se ba ll s ta dium.” Th e a ff ida vit a lso state s:

“ [T]he me ta l plate in qu e sti on wa s c on str uc te d a nd inc or po ra te d into t he ba se ba ll s ta dium si de wa lk in conformity

wit h t h e ar chitectur al plans and or igina l desig n.” While the trial court e x cluded portions of Throop’s a ffidavit, it did not ex clude the quote d portions, and Amezquita offe red no
e vid e nc e to r e but th e m. B e c a us e the qu ote d po rt ion s imp lic ate the tr ia l c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n, we mus t consider the m. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d at 227. Fur thermore , aff

idavit a side, it is har d to imagine how decisions about the c ompositi on and plac ement of t re n ch co v ers c ould be non-discr etionary
. See Rodriguez , 985 S.W .2d at 85 (“ [d] esig n of any public work . . . is a discr etionary function”) (empha sis a dded). We the ref ore conclude that incorporating the metal plate into the sidew alk was a discre tionary

desig n decision for

which the Unive rsity

reta ins immunity
. See id. at 86. Our c o n c lu s io nmi g h t b e d if

f e r e n t i f A me zq u it a h a d c o mp la in e d

n o t o f th e me tal plate’s pr esenc e but of its installation, for the Act waives immunity for ne g lige nt implementation of6

discretionar

y decisio n s. See Ste

phen F. Austin State Univ. v . Flynn , 2 2 8 S. W. 3 d 6 5 3 , 6 5 7 ( T e x. 20 07 ). B ut n owhe re in t he rec or d d oe s A me zqu ita a lle g e tha

t th e me ta l pl ate wa s d e fe c tiv e ly constructe d, positioned, maintained, or the like. Rather, Ame zquit a has c onsistently alleg ed—and
no evidenc e indicates that she could do otherwise—that the “def ect” at issue is simp l y

t he University ’s decision to use a potentially slippery metal plate. For example, in resp o n s e t o an interro gatory

askingfor the e x act c onditions t hat ca used her injuries, Amezquita answer ed: “The conditions . . . were . . . havinga metal surf ace on a wa lkway , which bec ame ex tremely slippery when we t on a ra iny

day .” This is a complaint about the de cision to put a potentially slippery metal plate in the wa lkway , not a complaint about the e x ecution of that decision. As a re sult, the University ’s immunity

from suit has not been w aived. F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , w e ho ld t hat th e Un ive rs ity ’s inc or

po r a tio n o f a me ta l pl ate into its sidewalk wa s a dis cre tionary decision for which the Unive rsity reta ins imm unity

under the Act. See Act § 101.056. Be cause our holdingdisposes of this case, w e do not addr ess other issues raised on a

ppeal. Ac c or

d Perez , 1 80 S.W. 3d

at 913 (d e c lin ingto c on sid e r p re mis e s d e fe c t c la im beca use under lying disc retionar y decision immuniz ed city from suit).
CO NC LU SION Be cause the jurisdi cti onal evidenc e shows conc lusively that the Univer sity ’s inc or po ratio n o f a

me ta l pl ate int o a

sid e wa lk w a s a dis c re tio na ry de c isi on

fo r whic h th e Un ive rs ity reta ins imm unity

under the Texas Tort Claims Act, w e re verse the trial cour t’s order denying the University ’s plea to the jur isdiction and rende r judg ment g ranting t h e Uni versity ’s plea a nd dismiss ing Amezquita’s suit for lack of jur isdiction.7 __________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Reverse d and Rende red Filed: June 4, 2009