Lady Justice
HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals has reversed a ruling denying Harris County immunity from a lawsuit brought by a 15-year-old pedestrian who was struck by a car one morning while crossing the road on her way to school.
The lawsuit was brought by the minor and her guardian, Lisa Durant, under the Texas Tort Claims Act, according to the First Court’s June 9 opinion.
Before classes started on the morning of March 23, 2022, the minor was struck by a car and injured while crossing the road near Dekaney High School. The car was traveling between 30 and 40 miles per hour when it struck her.
Court records show that a member of the school staff who witnessed the accident reported that the minor was walking with her head down, looking at what may have been a cell phone, and not keeping an eye on oncoming traffic as she crossed the road.
The minor acknowledged that she saw the car approaching and believed she had enough time to cross the road. The driver was not cited.
It is undisputed that the accident occurred when it was dark and before the school-zone flashers were activated.
In their petition, the plaintiffs assert the school-zone flashers are traffic-control devices that the county failed to properly maintain by programming them to start too late.
The county responded by filing a plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had governmental immunity because the decision when to operate school zones is discretionary and the school-zone flashers were operating as intended and without any mechanical or other operational defect around the time of the accident.
The trial court denied the county’s jurisdictional plea and summary-judgment motions without explanation, court records show.
The First Court concluded the trial court erred in denying the county’s plea based on governmental immunity.
“Here, there is no evidence or allegation that the County negligently failed to update the activation of school zone flashers in a manner unconnected to the school start time,” the opinion states. “To the contrary, the County presented evidence that the school-zone flashers were operating as intended, which (the minor) did not rebut.
“(The minor’s) complaint is about the County’s policy in the first instance, not its implementation, and thus her negligent-implementation theory does not save her claim from the County’s assertion of governmental immunity.”
Appeals case No. 01-24-01020-CV
