The Texas Supreme Court has found that a trial court has jurisdiction in a Texas Tort Claims Act personal injury suit, reversing the Tyler Court of Appeals and remanding to the trial court.

Leondra Leach v. The City of Tyler (No. 21-0606) arose from an injury suffered by Leach when a piece of lumber flew off a truck owned by the city and struck him in the head. Leondra filed suit, but the city claimed that the trial court had no jurisdiction because Plaintiff had failed to provide timely notice of the claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, and the court of appeals affirmed.

In a per curiam opinion, SCOTX reversed and remanded. The TTCA requires notice of a claim against a governmental entity to be given within six months of the alleged injury. § 101.101(a), CPRC. Tyler also has a charter provision requiring notice of tort claims within 30 days, which may be satisfied by filing a city-promulgated form. Plaintiff’s employer submitted the form seven days after the accident and informed Plaintiff that it would file a separate form for him. When the employer did not do so, the city claimed that Plaintiff had not given the required notice and waived his tort claim. Nevertheless, the Court found, the city had sufficient notice because the form filed by the employer also identified Plaintiff’s injury (as well as the damage to the employer’s vehicle) and provided his name, phone number, and address. It also described the accident in which the lumber flew off the city’s rolloff truck, entered Plaintiff’s vehicle, and struck him. Moreover, Plaintiff filed his lawsuit four months after the incident, well within the six-month notice deadline established by statute, so the city definitely had notice of the suit by that time.

Still, meeting the statutory deadline did not relieve Plaintiff of satisfying the city’s charter requirement, which had been “ratified and approved” by the Legislature as provided by § 101.101(b), CPRC. SCOTX held that the form filed by Plaintiff’s employer satisfied the charter requirement because the language of the charter provision permits “the person injured or claiming such damages, or someone on his behalf” to give the requisite notice. Because the notice specifically identified Plaintiff’s identity and the circumstances of his injury, it put the city on notice of his potential claim. The Court rejected the city’s claim that the notice was inadequate because it did not provide a valuation of the personal injury claim on the basis that it did not have to decide the question because the charter provision only required valuation of a property damage claim, not a personal injury claim.

This is another decision that exemplifies the Court’s shift from a rigid application of jurisdictional requirements to a substantial compliance approach that preserves jurisdiction where reasonable.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This