Opinion ID: 1772033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Department's Liability Under the Tort Claims Act

Text: Assuming without deciding that Petta's negligent training and supervision claims against the Department survive collateral estoppel, we must now decide whether they are barred by sovereign immunity. The Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity from suits arising both from: (1) the negligent conduct of an employee if property damage, personal injury, or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or equipment if the employee would be personally liable to the claimant; and (2) from injuries caused by a condition or use of tangible personal property if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law. [19] The Act specifically excludes waiver for a claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort.... [20] Here, the conduct Petta complains of is the same conduct that forms the basis of her assault and battery claim against Rivera. The specific conduct-hitting the window, calling a tow truck, aiming the gun, blocking Petta in with the cruiser, and firing at Petta's tires-is clearly intentional. The allegations fit squarely within section 101.057's exclusion of claims arising out of assault, battery, and false imprisonment. We have also said, however, that the Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity from suit for claims that an officer negligently carried out governmental policy. [21] But Petta does not allege facts demonstrating that Rivera negligently implemented policy. To support her negligence claim, Petta alleges that Rivera negligently ignored police procedure by continuing the pursuit, and that Rivera negligently ignored an order not to shoot at her car. But these too are intentional rather than negligent acts, and thus do not fall within the waiver of sovereign immunity. Petta's claim that the Department negligently failed to furnish the proper training, instruction, training manuals, and documents to Rivera also fails. To state a claim under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff must allege an injury resulting from the condition or use of tangible personal or real property. [22] We have long held that information is not tangible personal property, since it is an abstract concept that lacks corporeal, physical, or palpable qualitites. [23] In Dallas County v. Harper, [24] we concluded that simply reducing information to writing on paper does not make the information tangible personal property. [25] And in Kassen v. Hatley, [26] we specifically held that the information in an emergency room procedures manual is not tangible personal property. [27] Thus, while instructional manuals can be seen and touched, the Legislature has not waived immunity for negligence involving the use, misuse, or non-use of the information they contain. [28] Because written information in the form of instructions and manuals is not tangible personal property, we conclude that the information contained in the Department's policy and training manuals in this case is not tangible personal property and, accordingly, does not give rise to a claim under the Tort Claims Act. [29] Likewise, Petta's claims that the Department failed to devise adequate tests to assess Rivera's emotional competence, and that it failed to discipline Rivera after the incident, also involve the misuse or non-use of information and are thus barred by sovereign immunity. Finally, we note that Petta's reliance on Young v. City of Dimmitt [30] to support her negligent training claim is misplaced. In Young, we disapproved of a court of appeals' statement that an officer's intentional act necessarily precluded a suit for negligence under the Tort Claims Act. In doing so, we simply pointed out that a claim for negligent supervision or training was a distinct cause of action. [31] Nothing in what we said implied that this distinct cause of action was otherwise excepted from satisfying the Tort Claims Act's tangible personal property requirement. As we stated above, Petta's negligent training claim does not involve tangible personal property. Accordingly, it is not cognizable under the Tort Claims Act. Because sovereign immunity is not waived for Petta's claims, the Department is entitled to summary judgment.