City of Houston v. Danielle Williams, Individually and as Next Friend of D.C., a Minor (No. 01-24-00913-CV; August 18, 2024) arose from a 2022 collision between a Houston FD fire truck and a passenger vehicle that injured Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the city for negligence. The city moved to dismiss under Rule 91a or TRCP 166a(c), asserting immunity because it had no actual notice of the claims. The accident report didn’t identify Plaintiffs or that anyone had suffered injuries in the collision, and Plaintiffs filed no formal notice of the claim with the city within the 90-day deadline specified by city charter. Additionally, the city argued that Plaintiffs missed the notice deadline under the TTCA. The trial court, however, denied the city’s motion, resulting in this interlocutory appeal.
In an opinion by Justice Morgan, the court of appeals reversed. The city once again contended that it didn’t receive formal notice of the claim and didn’t have actual notice that Plaintiff D.C. was a passenger in the vehicle or suffered injury. The court agreed that formal notice, filed 100 days after the accident, fell outside the 90-day window and was untimely. Turning to the actual notice issue, the court observed that “the undisputed evidence shows that the accident report did not give the City actual notice that the 17-year-old passenger had any injury.” To the contrary, the accident report indicated that the passenger had no injury. “Because the report affirmatively indicates that the 17-year-old passenger was not injured,” the court concluded, “it does not provide ‘actual notice’ that ‘the claimant has received some injury ….” The simple fact that “an accident occurred, without more, is not enough to show subjective awareness of the City’s fault, as Williams alleges, in producing or contributing to D.C.’s claimed personal injury.”
The court thus reversed the trial court and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim.
