1 Appel la nts are Jesse W

ic kenh ei ser; John

Wi ckenh ei ser; Juan

Davi d Otoya Sil

va; Penel ope It zel Rosas; Mari a Sil

va Hen derson; Stephen

Fi sher; Ri chard an

d Carole F is

her; J eff Hultgren, as represe nt at ive of the estat e of Rosa Ir ma Rosas Hultgren; Louis an d Ste phani

e Korkames, ind ividua lly

an d a s r ep r es en t at ive s o f t he es t at e o f Vic t o r ia L uz Ko r ka mes ; R ich ar d a nd Lind a N o ell, ind ividua lly

an d a s rep re se

n tati v es of th e e sta te o f Kr ist ina Ho pe No ell; Carol y n a nd Th oma s Oe hl er, ind ividua lly

and as representativ

es of the estates of K

atrina Oe hler and Prec i ous He art Oeh

l er; Mark and Ke ndr a Wi cken he i ser, i ndi vi dual l y and asrepre sen

tativ es of the e state of

Ni na T. Wi ckenh ei ser . 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00431-CV

Jes se W ick enhei ser , Indiv idual ly, et al., 1 Appel

lan ts
v. City of Austin; County of Travis; and O’Malley Engineer s, Inc., Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT

NO. 97-06837, H ONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING
A pp el l an ts c ha l l en gethe tak e-n othi ng j udg men t ren de red ag ai ns t the i r cl ai m s f or dam ages re sult ing fro m an aut omo bile collision. Appel la nts alle ge that t he Cit y o f Au st in a nd T r av is Co unt y negligent ly designed and maint ained t he inte rse ct ion at which t he coll is ion occurred. They
co nt end that t he di strict court erred in renderi ng a p artial

sum ma ry j udgme

nt that t he county

had
so ve r eig n immun it y fro m so me cau ses o f act ion; t hey arg ue t hat , o nce t he co un t y de cid ed t o inst all
a “s top-a he ad ” s ign , t he sp ec ific p o sit io ning o f t he sig n w as no t dis cr et io na ry. A pp ella nt s a ls o
co nt end that t he di strict court erroneously subm itted a jury

question that ef

fecti vel y i mpu t ed a ny
n eg l i gen ce

b y th e v an dri v er to al l th e v an ’s pa ss en gers . We wi l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t.2 Appe llants d o no t challenge t he dist rict co ur t ’s findings t hat t he cit y cont ro lled t he i nte rs ec ti on and t hat t he co unt y had no re spo nsibil ity for t he inte rse ct ion o r t he plac ement of t he st op sign.

2 BACKGROUND T his sui t arises f rom a coll is ion b etween a van

driv en b y a ppel la nt Jesse W

ic kenh ei ser (“Wi ckenh ei ser”) and a pi

ckup truck driven

by John Harri s (“Harri s”) at the in tersection of McK

in ney Fa lls Parkway (“

the Parkway”) and Burleson Road. The i ntersection was

contro ll ed by the ci ty, but t he ap pr o ac h fr o m t he so ut hw es t o n t he P ar kw ay w as co nt r o lled by t he co un t y. 2 Wi cken he i ser, app ro aching the

i nte rs ec ti on f rom t he so ut hwes t on t he Pa rk way, did no t st op at t he st op sign at t he int er se ct io n. His van co lli ded wit h t he Ha rr is’s pick up. The coll is ion ki ll ed fi ve ch il dren i n the van and Harri s’s wi

fe i n the pi ckup. Several

ot hers i n the vehi cl es were i

nj ured. A pp el l an ts sued several pa

rties i nvol ved i n the d es ign and maint enanc e o f the inter sec t ion, al

l eg i n g s ev er al th eor i es of n eg l i gen ce . Th

ei r c l ai m s a gai n st a l l pa rties b ut th e c i ty and t he c o unt y we re se t t led o r o t her wise dis po se d o f.

Bef ore t rial, the county m

oved f oran d ob tai n ed a p ar ti al su m mar y j udgm en t. In i ts
m oti on, the county contended that, despi te three y ears of d isco ver y, ap pellant s had pr od uce d no evi dence to suppor t t hei

r clai ms a nd ha d fai

led to stat e a vali

d claim. In its o rder on t he cou nty’s motion f or summ ary j udgme

nt, the court wrot e: The Court fi

nds, as a m

atter of law, that t he i

ntersection at

is sue in t his c as e is contro lled by t he Cit y o f Au st in a nd wa s n o t t he r es po ns ibilit y o f T r av is C o un t y. Furtherm ore, as a matt er of law , T ra vis Co unt y had no re spo nsibil ity for t he i nte rs ec ti on pur sua nt t o t he I nt er loca l Agre ement bet wee n t he Cit y of Aust in and T r av is Coun

ty. It is the

ref ore, ORD ERED that Trav is County’s Second Am

ended Motion for Sum

ma ry J udgme nt is GRANTED asto any

and al l a ll egations m

ade by3 The jury did no t spe cify the bas is on w hich it fo und Wick enhe iser a nd Ko rk ames ne gl i gen t. Appel le es al le ged that Wi ckenh

ei ser operated t he van at an uns afe speed and f

ai le d to keep a proper l ookout, stopf

or a s top sign, and yield t he r ight -o f-wa y. The y alleged t hat Kor kames sho uld have known that t he van

was unsa fe and s hou ld no t have a llowed it t o be use d as it w as a fte r r emoving it s seat belts, not mai

ntaini ng or pr oper ly

repairin g its brakes, and fai

li ng to install

adequat e tires. 3 t he Pla int iffs a ga inst T r av is Cou n ty reg ard i ng the de si gn , pl ac em en t or con di ti on of the stop sign at i ssue. Furth er, the C ourt fi

ndstha t su m mary j udg men t m us t be an d i s GRA NTE D i n f av or of Tra vi s C oun ty on Pla int iffs’ cla ims regardin g the pla cem ent of the stop ahead si

gn and des ign o f the st op ahea d sign, beca use t he pl ac em en t an d de si gn of the stop ahead s ign in volv ed di scretionary

acts by Travi s County f

or which Travi s Coun

t y ha s so ve r eig n immu nit y. Sum mary judg ment is a lso GR AN T E D in fav o ro f T r av is C o un t y o n P laint iffs’ cla ims re gar ding the pla

cem ent of the two “fal

se” stopsi

gn s. The pl ac em en t an d c ond i ti on of t hese “false” st op signs invo lv ed di scretionary acts for whi

ch Travis County h

as so ve r eig n immu nit y. It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED an d DECREED, that t he only rem aining ca us e o f ac t io n ag ains t Tr avis Co unt y by Pla int iffs in Wickenheiser , et al. v. City of Austin, et al. , Cause No. 97- 078 37, as a lleged in P laintiffs’ Fou rt h Amended Pet itio n, is th e c au se

of ac ti on as se rti n g th at a spec i al

de f ec t wa s crea

ted by ve ge tati on surroundin

g the stop ahead sign an

d stop sign at i ssue.
T he ca se t he n p r o ce ed ed t o t r ial.

At trial , the jury

answered sev eral questions. The j ury f

ound that t he stop-ahead si gn
was not ob scure d by

ve ge tation on

t he da t e o f t he ac cid en t ; a cc o r din gly, t he jur o r s a s ins t ruc t ed did not co nsider whet her t he co unt y was ne gl i gen t. T he j ury f

ound that t he n

egl ige nce 3 of appe l l an ts Wi ckenh ei ser and Loui s Korkam

es contrib uted to the accident and f ound that t he negligenc e o f the ci ty di d n ot. B as ed on th es e a n sw er s, th e d

i str i ct c our t re n dere d a

tak e- n othi n g j udgm en t.4 DISCUSSI ON AND CONC LUSION A pp el l an ts contend that the distri ct court erredby gr ant ing par t ial summary judgment to the county an

d in constructing the n

egl ige nce question in

a way that im puted the neg li

gence o f Wi ckenh ei ser t o all t he ap pe llant s. Ap pe llant s lis t ed fo ur ad dit io na l iss ue s o n a pp ea l, but wai ved those co mplaints by failing to pr ovid e any sup po rt ingargumen

t, aut horiti es, or citations to the record. SeeTex . R. A

pp. P. 38 .1(h

). A pp el l an ts co nt en d t ha t t he co ur t er r ed at t he su mmar y- ju dg men t st ag e b y ho ldi

ng that t he speci fi

c positi onin

g of the stop-ahead

si gn wa s d i scre ti on ar

y on ce th e dec i si on to in stall the sign had been ma de. Whe n a defendan t moves for summ

ary j udgment on an aff

irm ative defen

se, it must conclusi vel y establ ish each e l em

en t of i ts def en se a s a m

atter of l aw. See Velsicol Chem

. Corp. v. Winograd , 956 S.W.2d 529, 530 (Tex. 1997). A defe ndan t is n ot entitled to judgme

nt as a m atter of law o n an affirmat ive defens e if the plaint iff sup plies evide nce a s t o a ny mater ial fact iss ue r elevant to the defe

nse upon wh

ic h reas onab l e m

i nds could dif f er. Santanna Natural Gas Corp. v. Hamon Operating

Co. , 954 S.W.2d 885, 89 0 (Tex. App.—Austi n 1997, pet. deni ed) (citi ng Kassen v. Hatley , 88 7 S .W .2 d 4 , 9 (T ex. 19 94 )) . B ec au se t he p ro pr iet y of a sum mary j udg men t i s a que sti on of l aw, we revi ew th e tri al

court’s deci sion de novo. Id
. A pp el l an ts ca n mai n tai n th i s s ui t ag ai n st th e c i ty and county

only if sovereign i m m un i ty hasbeen wai ved f or t hei r clai ms . General

ly , governm

ental en ti ti esare i m m une f rom sui t an d f rom liab ilit y. See Gr

een Int’l, Inc. v. St

ate , 877 S.W.2 d 428, 432 ( Tex. App .—Aust in 1994, wr it dism’ d by agr.). B y adopti ng th e Tort Cl ai m s A ct, th e l eg i sl atu re wai ve d the i m m un i ty of th e S tate an d i ts sub di visions i n c ertai n s i tuati ons. SeeTe x. C iv. Prac. & Rem . Code Ann . § 101.021, et seq. (West5

1997 & Su pp. 200 1) . Whe n co nsider ing waiver of so ver eign immunity in a c ase ar ising fro m the design of a road-construction detour, the suprem e court wr ot e the fol

lowi ng: Fi rs t, un der s ec ti on

10 1.0 56 , the S tate

pr es er v es i ts i m m un i ty f oran act “i

f the l aw le aves t he pe rfo rmance or nonp er for mance o f the act t o t he disc re t ion o f the governm ental uni t.” Tex . Ci

v. Pra c. & Rem. Code § 1 01.056 (2). Thus, if the St ate ’s ac ti on i s discre tion ary, i t does n ot wai ve i ts i m m uni ty. See State

v. Burris , 877 S.W.2d 29 8, 2 99 (Tex . 19 94 ). A n ac t i s d i scre ti on ar

y i f i t requires e xer cising j udgm en t an d th e l aw doe s n ot m an da te per for ming the act with such precis ion that not hingi s lef

t to dis cretion or j udgm

en t. S e e City of Lancaster v. Ch ambers , 883 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Tex. 1994). Design of any publ ic work, suc has a roadw ay, i s a di screti ona ry f un cti on involving many

pol i cy de cisi on s, an d th e g ov er n men tal en ti ty r es po nsib le ma

y n ot be sued

f or such deci sions. See Villarre

al v. State , 810 S.W.2d 419, 42 2 (Tex . App.—Da l l as 1 991, w

ri t deni ed). Second, unde r se ct ion 1 01. 060 , t he St at e do es no t waive it s sov ere i gn i m m un i ty f or cla ims ar ising fr o m “ th e f ai l ure of a g ove rn men tal un i t i ni ti al l y to plac e a

traf f i c or road si gn , si gnal , or warn i ng d evi ce i f the f ail ure i s a re sul

t of discre tion ary ac ti on of the g overn

men tal uni t.” Tex . Ci

v. Pra c. & Rem. Code § 1 01.060 (a)(1). State v. Rodriguez , 985 S.W .2d 83, 8 5 (Tex . 1999)
.

A pp el l an ts argue that the precise pl acem ent of the st op-a

he ad si gn wa s n ot di scre tion ary beca use it w as g ove rne d by t he Man ual on Un i f orm T raf f i c Con trol De vi ces . See State Dep’t of Highways v

. King , 795 S.W .2d 888 , 895-9 6 (Tex . App.—Be aum ont 1990 ), w

rit denied , 808 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 19 91) (pe

r curi am ). In deny in g the wr it in King , however, the s uprem e court quot ed l an gua gef rom the Manual

stating that the Man

ual ’s standards we

re guidel in es, not substitutes f oren gin eerin

g study or judgm

ent, and were not lega

ll y bin din g. 808 S.W.2d at 466. I n a l ater opi ni on re ver sing a jur y verd ict a nd renderi ng a take-not hi

ng j udgme

nt agai nst persons i

nj ured in an
au t o mo bile colli sion, t he supreme co urt held that t he St ate ret ained i ts imm unity f or its ro ad cre w’s6

exercise of di screti on in deciding t o p lace ba rr els as a war ningdev i ce , a de cisi on th at c om pl i ed wi th the M an ual
. State v. Miguel , 2 S.W .3d 249 , 252 (Tex. 19 99). We hold t hat t he dist rict co ur t did no t er r by ho ldingtha t the pl ac em en t ofthe stopah ead s i gn was a

di scre tion ary act . T her e is no ev

i den ce th at th e M an ual ’s gui de l i n es ar e a b sol ute parame ters. We are ci

ted to no statut ory or contract ual provisi on that con stra

i ns the pl ac em en t of signs in a w ay t ha t elimi na

tes discre tion or ju dgm en t, in di cati ng th at di scre tion i s nece ssa

ry . See Rodriguez , 98 5 S
. W. 2d at 85
. Ra t he r , t he se ct io ns o f t he Ma nu al ap pe llant s in clude d in t he summary- judg ment record

re f er to “suggested” mi

ni mum distances as an “aid” to guide the exercise of “en gin eerin g j udg ment” in d ec i di

n g w h er e to p l ac e w ar

n i n g s i gn s. Fu

rther , the dec i si

on n ot to pla ce a stop-ahea d s i gn

wi th in the M anua l’s re co mmended z one is subst ant ially t he sa me as t he de cisi on n ot to pl ac e a roa d s i gn at a l l , f or w h i ch i m m un i ty i s ex pres sl y not wai ve d. SeeTe x. C iv. P rac. & R em. Co de Ann
. § 1 01
. 06 0( a) ( 1) ( We st 19 97 )
. We co nc lud e t ha t bo t h d isc r et io nary de cis io ns ar e w it hint his st at ut e’ s n o n- wa ive ro f immu nit y.

Appell ants’ dis cussi

on under i ssue o ne ext ends beyond t he st op -a head sign. A pp el l an ts co nt end in t he t ex t o f t he ir brief that t he county fai

led to respo nd tim

ely to complai

nts, not ab ou t th e stop-ahead si gn, but about in consi stent speed lim

its al ong the Parkway b etween McKi nne y Fal l s Par k an d Burl eson Road. See id. § 101.06 0(a)(2 ). The or der on t he co unt y’s seco nd
am ended motion f or summ ary j udgme

nt—whi ch di spens es wi

th cla ims about the stop sign, the stopahead si gn , an d “ f al se ” s top s i gn s, a

nd pre serv escl

ai m s a bou t ve ge tati on a roun d s i gn s— doe s n ot address sp ee d limit signs; a ppe llants c ite u s t o no ot her summary- judg ment order denyi

ng the speed4 Even i f the parti al

sum ma ry j udgme nt could be

read to deny this cl ai m, appel la nts hav e not cited evi dence sup po rt ing t heir claim t hat t he county i gnored compl ai nts about the speed lim

it si gns on an ap plic ab le stretch

of road
. Appellants cite a let t er in which the wr iter co mplains, no t abo ut t he absen ce o f sp ee d limit signs o n t he northe ast-b ound s tretch of road traveled b

y the a ppel l an ts be f ore t he acc i den

t, but tha t the posted

spe ed l i m i t of thi rty- f i ve m i l es p er hour was slower

th an th e f i f ty mi le s per hou r t hat t he lett er -w rit er re called be ing app ro ved. The lett er wr iter ’s co ncer n abo ut t he absen ce of speed li

mi t signs f or so uthwest -bo und traffi c i s i rrelev ant to t hi s sui

t because n

ei ther ve hic le wasdri

vi ng th at di rection on th

e Park way . No r d oe s any inco nsist ency bet wee n t he posted speed l i m i ts f or tra f f i c on the Par kw ay ha ve an y arti cul ate d b ea

ri ng on ca us ati on of t his co lli sion. The ot her ci ted evi dence

re f er ri n g to t he ab se nc e o f sp ee d limit sig ns is no t a c o mpla int bu t an affid av it re gar ding where the Man

ual ’s gui del in es would di

rect placem

ent of the stop-ahead si

gn base d o n t he sp ee d l i m i t. Th e a f f i an t us es th e f aster un posted sp ee d l i m i t to ca l cul ate th at p l ac em

en t.
5 At t r ial, t he jur y fo un d t ha t ve ge t at io n d id not o bscure the si

gn. Appel

la nts do not chall

enge the suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence to support the jury ’s f in din g. 7 limit com pl ai nt. W e there f

or e n ee d n ot con

si der th i s ch al l en ge to th e p ar

ti al su m mar y j udgm en t. 4 If the cl ai m pe rsis ted thro ugh trial, it was den ied in t he fina l

j udg men t al ong wi th a l l rel i ef not expressl y gran ted; appella

nts di d not compla

in about the tr eatmen

t o f this clai

m a t t he trial stage. A pp el l an ts al so compl ai

n that the county f

ai le d t o mo w t he inter sec t ion and t he approaches to the

i nte rs ec ti on . Appe llants’ inclus ion o f this ar gument in their challenge t o t he
sum mary judg ment is no t well-t ake n. R ega rd ingt he inter sec t ion it self, t he dist rict co ur t held at t he summary- judg ment stage that t he county was not res po nsibl e fo r maint aining t he inte rse ct ion; appe l l an ts do n ot chal l en gethi s h ol di ng on app eal and canno t co mplain of t he cou nty ’s f ai l ure to mow grass for whi

ch i t was not respo nsi

ble. Regardin

g the approaches to t he i

ntersect ion, the d is

trict courtde ni ed the cou nty ’s moti on for summary judg ment r ega rd ingwhet her vege t at ion o bscu re d t he st op -a head sign. 5 W e r es ol v e iss ue on e i n f av or of th e j udgm

en t. By issu e two, appella

nts compl

ai n that the dis

trict court erred by

refusi ng thei r “reque stedj ury

i ssues re qui

ri ng n otice to each Pl ai ntif f and i nstead i m puti ng W i cken he i ser’ s6 Pu r su an t t o t he dis t r ict co ur t ’s inst ruc t io n, t he jur y exc lud ed t he co un t y fro m t he ir con si de rati on on thi s iss uebe ca us e they f oun d that the c oun

ty m owe d the veg eta

ti on ar ou nd t he st op -a head sign. 8 negl ige ncet o all Plai

nti f f s, i nc l udi ng the m i nor ch i l dre n, i n jury que sti on 2 (c) .” In q

ue sti on t wo , t he di strict court asked the j ury wh ether the fol

lowi ng parties ’ negl

ige nce proxi ma tely caus ed th e
co lli sion: the ci ty , ap pe l l an ts W i cken he i ser an d L oui s K

or kam es, and O’ Mal

le y, a dism

is sed de f en da n t; 6 t he jur y an sw er ed affir mat ive ly re ga r din g W ick en he ise ran d K o r ka mes an d n eg at ive ly
re gar ding the c i

ty a nd O ’M al l ey . The j ur

y ’s f ai l ur e to fi nd that the defe

ndan ts proxim ately caused t he coll is ion ren ders harm

le ss an y e rror in the j ury

que sti on r eg ard i ng the ne gl i ge nc e or l

ac k of
ne gli gen ce b y the othe r plai ntif f s. Even i f the district court had

ask ed s epa ra t e qu est ions r ega rd ing
ca us ati on by each a ppe llant and even if t he jur y fail ed t o find t he remai

ni ng appell ants negli gent, t hose
re maining appe l l an ts stil l could not rec over f

rom a ppel l ees wh o werenot found t o b e p rox i mate
ca us es of th e acc i den

t. We r es ol

v e iss ue two i n f av or of th e j udgm

en t. W e a f f i rm th e j udgm

en t.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 8, 2001 Do No t Publis

h