Background
Joe Martinez sued the City of Houston and a City employee for personal injuries and property damage allegedly resulting when a City-owned truck backed into his parked vehicle. Martinez alleged that the employee, acting within the scope of his employment, backed up without reasonable care and was cited by a Houston police officer for “Backed Without Safety.” Martinez later nonsuited the employee and invoked the Texas Tort Claims Act’s motor-vehicle waiver of governmental immunity against the City.
The City moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that Martinez had not pleaded facts showing compliance with the jurisdictional notice-of-claim requirement or timely actual notice by the City. Although Martinez asserted in a response to an earlier motion that notice had been sent to the City Secretary’s office, his live petition contained no such allegation, and he did not respond to the City’s second motion. The trial court nevertheless denied dismissal on the ground that Martinez had alleged actual notice.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that Martinez failed to plead facts establishing a valid waiver of the City’s governmental immunity. Houston’s charter requires written notice of personal-injury or property-damage claims within 90 days, and compliance with that requirement—or facts establishing the City’s timely actual notice—is jurisdictional.
Under Rule 91a, the court could consider only Martinez’s pleadings and qualifying pleading exhibits, not assertions made solely in his response to the City’s motion. His petition did not allege formal notice and did not allege that the City had actual knowledge of an injury or property damage, its alleged fault in causing that harm, and the parties’ identities. The allegation that a police officer cited the employee for unsafe backing described no more than a routine safety investigation and did not establish actual notice of the claim. The court reversed the order denying the City’s motion and rendered judgment dismissing Martinez’s claims against the City.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff invoking the Texas Tort Claims Act must plead facts showing compliance with the applicable notice-of-claim deadline or timely actual notice by the governmental unit.
- In a Rule 91a proceeding, statements made only in a response to the motion cannot supply jurisdictional facts omitted from the live pleading.
- A police investigation or traffic citation does not by itself establish actual notice that the governmental unit’s fault caused an injury or property damage.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that merely citing the Texas Tort Claims Act’s motor-vehicle waiver is insufficient to overcome governmental immunity. Plaintiffs suing Houston must include factual allegations addressing the City charter’s 90-day notice requirement or each component of actual notice in their live pleadings.
It also illustrates Rule 91a’s strict focus on the pleadings: jurisdictional assertions made in briefing, but omitted from the petition and qualifying exhibits, will not prevent dismissal.