Burnett v. Texas Highway Dept., 11-84-251-CV
| Citation | 694 S.W.2d 210 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-84-251-CV,11-84-251-CV |
| Parties | Sylvia BURNETT et al., Appellants, v. TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
A large truck-tractor moved to its left in order to avoid a vehicle which was traveling in the same direction and which started to change lanes before its driver saw the truck. The truck hit the metal beam guard fence which was in the median separating east bound traffic from west bound traffic. The truck came through the guard fence and struck a passenger vehicle which was approaching from the opposite direction. The driver 1 of the passenger vehicle and her granddaughter 2 sued the Texas Highway Department, 3 seeking damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6252-19 (Vernon 1970). Defendant's motion for summary judgment that plaintiffs take nothing was granted on October 27, 1983. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. 4
Plaintiffs have briefed one ground of error. They argue that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.
We agree with the trial court that the depositions and affidavits show that there is no dispute as to the material facts and that the Texas Highway Department is entitled to summary judgment.
The wreck occurred on June 8, 1973, on Interstate Highway 10 inside the City of El Paso. This portion of the highway was designed, and the construction was completed in 1961, prior to the effective date of the Texas Tort Claims Act. Section 14(1) of the Act specifically provides:
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon an act or omission which occurred prior to the effective date of this Act....
Moreover, the summary judgment proof shows that the highway met or exceeded the design and construction standards which existed when the highway was completed in 1961.
Prior to the 1973 accident, the Texas Highway Department sought federal funds to replace the metal beam guard fence with a rigid barrier, but the change was not made until after the wreck involved in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs argue that this raises a fact issue as to the "maintenance" of the highway. 5 We disagree. Changing or "upgrading" the median barrier is a matter involving the exercise of discretion. Section 14(7) of the Texas Tort Claims Act specifically provides:
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to: ... (7) Any claim based upon the failure of a unit of government to perform any act which said unit of government is not required by law to perform. If the law leaves the performance or nonperformance of an act to the discretion of the unit of government, its decision not to do the act, or its failure to make a decision thereon, shall not form the basis for a claim under this Act.
See and compare Stanford v. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 635 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We agree with Stanford that "changing the design" is not maintenance and that maintenance means "that which is required to preserve the (highway) as it was originally designed and constructed." The decision to change the median barrier is a discretionary matter which is exempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarrant County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. Crossland
...design of the bridge and reservoir because the bridge and reservoir were designed before 1970. Burnett v. Texas Highway Dep't., 694 S.W.2d 210, 211-12 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Lights, signs, and safety features are part of a design. Shives v. State, 743 S.W.2d 714, 716-......
-
Keegan v. State
...of guardrails and barricades is the exercise of a discretionary power which ... is immune from liability"); Burnett v. Texas Highway Dep't, 694 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex.Ct.App.1985) (holding that decision to change median barrier is discretionary matter exempted from Based on the foregoing, the......
-
Lawrence v. City of Wichita Falls
...Chapman, 839 S.W.2d at 98-99; Crossland, 781 S.W.2d at 438-39; Shives, 743 S.W.2d at 715; Burnett v. Texas Highway Dep't, 694 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This argument "places the cart before the horse" in that it assumes an immunity at common law that the ......
-
Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Pate, 06-04-00070-CV.
...constructed." See Villarreal v. State, 810 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied); Burnett v. Tex. Highway Dep't, 694 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The case was submitted to the jury, not as a defect in the design of the roadway or in the location......