Kristopher Lloyd Fraley v. Texas A&M University System

Supreme Court of Texas

══════════

No. 21-0784

══════════

Kristopher Lloyd Fraley,

Petitioner,

v.

Texas A&M University System,

Respondent

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the

Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas

═══════════════════════════════════════

Argued November 29, 2022

JUSTICE BLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

A driver proceeded straight through a T-shaped intersection,

leaving the roadway and landing in a shallow ditch on the other side. He

sued the university system charged with maintaining the road, claiming

that a lack of lighting, barricades, and warning signs around the

intersection caused his injuries. He further alleged that the Tort Claims

Act waived the university’s immunity from suit.

The university filed a jurisdictional plea, arguing that these

alleged facts demonstrated neither a special defect nor an unreasonably

dangerous condition. The alleged failure to provide adequate warning

signs and the overall design of the intersection are discretionary

decisions, it further argued, for which the Act expressly denies a waiver

of governmental immunity unless the facts demonstrate a special defect.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the university’s

jurisdictional plea and ordered the case dismissed.

We agree with the court of appeals that neither the driver’s

pleadings nor the evidence demonstrates a special defect under the Act.

We further conclude that the alleged dangerous conditions—grounded

in failures of design and lack of signage at the intersection—are

discretionary decisions for which immunity is not waived. We therefore

affirm.

I

Petitioner Kristopher Fraley drove straight through an

unfamiliar and unlit T-intersection at Sixth Street and Avenue B,

leaving the roadway and coming to rest in a ditch. The single-car

accident happened on Respondent Texas A&M University System’s

RELLIS Campus. The University owns and maintains the campus and

its roadways.

A month before the accident, the University converted the

intersection from a four-way intersection into a three-way

T-intersection. After the conversion, a sloped ditch running parallel to

Sixth Street and adjacent to the roadway remained.

A yield sign on Avenue B marked Fraley’s northbound approach

to the T-intersection. Other than the yield sign, the intersection had no

2

streetlights or traffic control devices, and no guardrail or barricade

blocked the top of the T on the other side of the intersection.

Fraley sued the University, claiming that the intersection’s

dangerous condition caused his accident and resulting injuries. The

University responded with a jurisdictional plea, arguing that Fraley’s

pleadings failed to state facts showing that the intersection presented

an unreasonably dangerous condition or that the University was aware

of any such condition. The University’s immunity also was not waived

based on alleged failures in the intersection’s design, it argued, because

the Tort Claims Act expressly carves out from the waiver of immunity

negligence claims that are based on a government’s discretionary

decisions, particularly decisions about the initial placement of roadway

warning signs and signals—unless the facts alleged demonstrate a

special defect. 1 The University preemptively argued that Fraley’s

accident did not arise from a special defect.

In reply, Fraley filed his third amended petition, alleging a

special defect in addition to ordinary premises defects. In that petition,

he alleged that the University breached its duty of care by removing the

northern stretch of the road and:

• failing to warn drivers of the road’s alteration;

• failing to light the area;

• failing to guide drivers away from the area;

• failing to barricade or block off the area; and

• failing to make the intersection reasonably safe.

1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.060.

3

Fraley filed two photographs and some deposition testimony with

the trial court in connection with the plea proceedings. The trial court

denied the plea. 2

The court of appeals reversed, holding that Fraley had not

pleaded facts sufficient to demonstrate a waiver of immunity under the

Tort Claims Act. 3 A ditch running along the roadway at the top of a

T-intersection is not a special defect, it held, and any allegedly

dangerous condition of the intersection resulted from discretionary

design decisions, like the failure to place signs and barricades, for which

the University retained its immunity. 4 We granted review.

II

Governmental immunity generally deprives a trial court of

subject-matter jurisdiction over suits against the government unless the

state consents to the suit. 5 For certain claims for personal injuries, the

Tort Claims Act waives governmental immunity. 6 Pertinent here, the

Act waives immunity for claims alleging that an unreasonably

dangerous condition of real property caused the plaintiff’s injuries. 7 For

This interlocutory appeal is permitted by Texas Civil Practice and

2

Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(8).

3 ___ S.W.3d ___, 2021 WL 3282161, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 30,

2021).

4 Id.

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224–25

5

(Tex. 2004).

6 Id.

7Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.021 (“A governmental unit in the

state is liable for . . . personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use

4

an ordinary premises-defect claim, the Act waives immunity to the same

extent that the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be

liable to a licensee on private property. 8 The Act differentiates between

ordinary premises-defect cases and those arising from a governmental

unit’s duty to warn of “special defects such as excavations or

obstructions on highways, roads, or streets.” 9 In special-defect cases, the

government’s duty is that of a private landowner to an invitee. 10

The Act restricts its waiver of immunity to exclude certain types

of premises-defect claims. Immunity is not waived for claims based on

“a governmental unit’s decision not to perform an act . . . if the law

leaves the performance or nonperformance of the act to the discretion of

the governmental unit.” 11 In particular, the Act retains immunity for

claims based on a governmental unit’s decision not to place a sign,

signal, or warning device, unless the dangerous condition is a special

defect:

(a) This chapter [waiving immunity] does not apply to a

claim arising from:

(1) the failure of a governmental unit initially to

place a traffic or road sign, signal, or warning device

if the failure is a result of discretionary action of the

governmental unit;

of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit would, were it a

private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law.”).

8 Id. § 101.022(a).

9 Id. § 101.022(b).

10State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235,

237 (Tex. 1992).

11 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.056(2).

5

(2) the absence, condition, or malfunction of a traffic

or road sign, signal, or warning device unless the

absence, condition, or malfunction is not corrected

by the responsible governmental unit within a

reasonable time after notice; or

(3) the removal or destruction of a traffic or road

sign, signal, or warning device by a third person

unless the governmental unit fails to correct the

removal or destruction within a reasonable time

after actual notice.

....

(c) This section does not apply to the duty to warn of special

defects such as excavations or roadway obstructions. 12

In responding to a jurisdictional plea, “the plaintiff must

affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction by establishing a valid

waiver of immunity.” 13 We review de novo a challenge to the trial court’s

subject-matter jurisdiction based on a failure to demonstrate a waiver

of governmental immunity. 14 Appellate review parallels that of

summary judgment: a reviewing court should view the evidence in a

light favorable to the nonmovant, indulging reasonable inferences from

that evidence in the nonmovant’s favor. 15 To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff

must establish that jurisdiction exists as a matter of law or raise a fact

issue that overcomes the jurisdictional challenge that is intertwined

with the merits. 16

12 Id. § 101.060.

13 Gulf Coast Ctr. v. Curry, 658 S.W.3d 281, 284 (Tex. 2022).

14 Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226.

15 Id. at 228; see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).

16 Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 221.

6

At the outset, Fraley observes that the University provided no

evidence to counter the allegations in his pleadings. He argues that it is

error for a reviewing court to consider evidence in a jurisdictional

challenge based on the pleadings. In responding to the plea, however,

Fraley provided two photographs of the scene and proffered some

deposition testimony. In that testimony, Fraley’s colleague said that the

recent campus construction required those attending a training exercise

to locate new paths to exit the campus, so participants were unfamiliar

with the intersection where the accident happened.

When either party adduces evidence in connection with a

jurisdictional plea, the trial court should consider that evidence in

addition to challenges to the pleadings in confirming its jurisdiction. 17

Thus, we too examine the pleadings and the evidence to ascertain

whether Fraley has alleged facts sufficient to establish a waiver of

immunity.

A

We first turn to the nature of the duty the University owed to

Fraley. The duty imposed on a governmental premises owner depends

in part on whether the alleged defect constitutes an ordinary defect or a

special defect. 18 In addition, the Act carves out from its waiver of

immunity premises claims based on the failure to place signs or signals

in the first instance, except when the defect alleged is a special defect. 19

17 See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).

18 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.022.

19 Id. § 101.060.

7

For an ordinary premises-liability claim, the governmental unit

owes the duty that a private person would owe to a licensee. 20 The duty

owed is the duty to warn the licensee of a dangerous condition or to make

the condition reasonably safe, but only when the owner is aware of the

dangerous condition and the licensee is not. 21

When a plaintiff alleges a special defect, in contrast, the

government’s duty is expanded to the typical duty a private landowner

owes an invitee. 22 Thus, for a special defect, the duty is to warn of an

unreasonable risk of harm that the premises condition creates when the

government owner knows or reasonably should know of that condition. 23

In addition to the heightened duty to warn, if an alleged defect is a

special defect, then the limitation on the waiver of governmental

immunity to exclude discretionary decisions about design, signage, and

signals does not apply. 24 Whether a condition qualifies as a special defect

is a question of law. 25

B

The Tort Claims Act defines a special defect by listing examples:

special defects include “excavations or obstructions on highways, roads,

or streets.” 26 In applying this definition, our Court has held that a

20 Id. § 101.022(a).

21 Payne, 838 S.W.2d at 237.

22 Id. (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.022(b)).

23 Id.

24 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.060(c).

25 Payne, 838 S.W.2d at 238.

26 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.022(b).

8

special defect must be “of the same kind or class” as excavations or

obstructions. 27 Factors helpful to ascertaining whether a premises

condition is a special defect include the condition’s size, whether the

condition unexpectedly impairs a vehicle’s ability to travel on the road,

or whether it presents an unexpected and unusual danger to ordinary

users of the roadway. 28

An ordinary roadway user follows the normal course of travel. 29

An ordinary user does not “careen uncontrollably off the paved roadway

and into the adjoining grass.” 30 An ordinary user does not “miss a turn

and crash through a concrete guardrail.” 31

Fraley alleges that the ditch adjoining the roadway at the

converted T-intersection presented a special defect. 32 Fraley does not,

however, distinguish this ditch in kind or in character from many others

that run along Texas roads at the top of T-intersections. He instead

relies on the University’s decision a month earlier to convert the

intersection from a four-way intersection to a three-way intersection.

27 County of Harris v. Eaton, 573 S.W.2d 177, 179 (Tex. 1978).

28 Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Tex. 2010).

29 Denton County v. Beynon, 283 S.W.3d 329, 332 (Tex. 2009).

30 Id.

31 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Perches, 388 S.W.3d 652, 656 (Tex. 2012).

32 While Fraley pleads that the entire intersection constitutes a special

defect, the only portion of the intersection that is in the nature of an excavation

or an obstruction is the ditch.

9

A premises-defect claim examines the condition of the premises

at the time of the alleged injury. 33 The University’s earlier decision to

convert the intersection does not change the nature of the premises or

its condition on the night in question. While information about the

construction of the intersection could inform whether a governmental

unit complied with its duty of care, that information does not change the

condition of this ditch from any other encountered by an ordinary user

of Texas roads. The jurisdictional evidence indicates that Fraley had not

traveled in this area of the campus before the accident.

Fraley further argues that the court of appeals erred in

categorically excluding dangers on the side of the roadway from the

types of defects that might constitute special defects under the Act. 34

33 See City of Corsicana v. Stewart, 249 S.W.3d 412, 415 (Tex. 2008)

(holding that the City retained immunity because no evidence showed that the

City had actual knowledge of flooding at the time of the accident; the City’s

awareness that the area flooded occasionally was insufficient).

34 Fraley relies on two court of appeals decisions, Harris County v.

Estate of Ciccia, 125 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet.

denied), and City of Houston v. Jean, 517 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.), to argue that the ditch in this case is a special

defect. In Ciccia, the driver encountered a designated right turn lane, marked

with striping, arrows, and the words “right turn only” on the surface of the

road; these indicators directed the driver not to a right turn but into a ditch

containing a concrete culvert. 125 S.W.3d at 752–53. The culvert was not part

of the initial design but had been added later, with the County’s permission,

by a third party. Id. The court of appeals held that the County’s immunity was

waived for failure to warn of a special defect. Id. at 755. Because the driver in

Ciccia followed the lane of travel as directed, the ditch in that case presented

an excavation encountered on the roadway. In contrast, nothing alleged in this

case directed Fraley to a continuing lane of travel beyond the T-intersection.

In Jean, the court of appeals considered a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence and held that a jury reasonably could have found that a poorly

10

The statutory text, however, likens special defects to excavations or

obstructions on roads. 35 While location is not determinative, 36

off-roadway obstructions are different in kind than those present on the

roadway, as the statute expressly contemplates. Ditches and

excavations are alike in that both are depressions in the ground’s

surface. An excavation on the road, however, presents a danger that

drivers cannot avoid without altering their normal course of travel. A

driver avoids a ditch adjacent to a roadway simply by remaining on the

road.

Neither the pleadings nor the evidence demonstrates that the

ditch in this case possessed an unusual quality that might impair an

ordinary driver from following the roadway. Drainage ditches along the

roadway—including alongside the top of T-intersections—are a common

feature of many Texas roads. Ordinarily, a ditch adjacent to a roadway

does not impair or obstruct the ordinary course of travel on the roadway.

lit T-intersection bordered by a ditch constituted a dangerous condition that

triggered the City’s duty to warn or protect drivers. 517 S.W.2d at 599. In a

footnote in Payne, we cited Jean as one example of a court recognizing an

off-road hazard as a special defect. 838 S.W.2d at 238 n.3. The point we made

in that footnote, however, was that the location on or off the roadway is not

dispositive of whether a condition is a special defect; rather, the pertinent

question is whether the condition poses a threat to ordinary users of the

roadway. Id. We later clarified as much in Perches when we concluded that the

special-defect status of an off-road condition depends on whether the condition

impedes travel for ordinary users of the road. 388 S.W.3d at 656.

35 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.022(b).

36 Payne, 838 S.W.2d at 238 n.3.

11

Our decision in Texas Department of Transportation v. Perches

informs this analysis. 37 In that case, an elevated highway ramp ended

in a T-intersection; its signage directed drivers to turn left. 38 The driver

failed to make the turn and instead drove through a concrete guardrail. 39

We determined that the guardrail was not a special defect because it did

not pose a risk to ordinary users of the road; rather, it “became an

impediment only when [the driver] missed his turn and proceeded off

the road.” 40 We emphasized that ordinary users of the roadway are

expected to follow the normal course of travel. 41 Fraley, like the driver

in Perches, deviated from the normal course of travel when he

encountered the ditch.

Because ordinary users are not expected to travel beyond the

surface of the roadway under the circumstances alleged, 42 we conclude

that the ditch Fraley encountered when he left the roadway was not a

special defect. Thus, the University owed a duty to Fraley as a licensee,

and the Tort Claims Act’s limitation to its waiver of governmental

immunity for discretionary decisions about design and signage applies.

III

The exclusion of discretionary decisions about design and signage

precludes a waiver of governmental immunity in this case. The decision

37 388 S.W.3d 652.

38 Id. at 653.

39 Id.

40 Id. at 656.

41 Id.

42 See id.

12

to redesign the intersection and place a yield sign—rather than a stop

sign or some other signal—was discretionary, at least as an initial

matter. The “[d]esign of any public work, such as a roadway, is a

discretionary function,” precluding a waiver of immunity under the Tort

Claims Act. 43 This retention of immunity for discretionary design

decisions extends to decisions about the installation of safety features. 44

Thus, immunity is not waived with respect to claims based on the

University’s initial omission of lights, barricades, or warning signs at

the intersection. Instead, the Act expressly recognizes that the initial

decision not to install traffic control devices cannot give rise to liability

for a premises defect, unless that defect is a “special” defect. 45 We hold

that the University’s alleged failures to make the intersection safe fall

within the well-recognized discretionary-function exception. 46

Our decision in Texas Department of Transportation v. Ramirez

involved allegations like Fraley’s. 47 In Ramirez, we considered whether

the Act waived the Department’s immunity based on its alleged

defective design of a narrow, sloped highway median that lacked

barriers or guardrails. 48 The plaintiff presented evidence of earlier

43 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Ramirez, 74 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex. 2002)

(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 985 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.

1999)).

44 Id. (citing State v. Miguel, 2 S.W.3d 249, 251 (Tex. 1999)).

45 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.060(a)(1), (c).

46 Id. §§ 101.056(2), .060(a)(1).

47 74 S.W.3d 864.

48 Id. at 867.

13

accidents at that location and proffered an expert opinion that the

median was not safe. 49 Despite this evidence, we concluded that the Act

did not waive the Department’s immunity because “the median’s slope

and the lack of safety features, such as barriers or guardrails, reflect

discretionary decisions for which TxDOT retains immunity under the

Act’s discretionary-function exception.” 50

Like the plaintiff in Ramirez, Fraley similarly complains of the

intersection’s lack of safety features like lights, barricades, and warning

signs. The decision to omit these features from the design of the

intersection fell within the University’s discretion. Absent a special

defect, the Act’s discretionary-function exception precludes a waiver of

immunity based on such allegations.

Fraley further argues that, while design decisions are

discretionary and excluded from the waiver of immunity, the

University’s negligent implementation of a planned design is not. He

requests the opportunity to replead his case should additional discovery

reveal facts demonstrating that the intersection’s construction and

safety features did not conform to its design plans. Fraley observes that

the court of appeals, not the trial court, found his pleadings defective.

Negligent implementation is not a separate theory of liability

under the Tort Claims Act. Instead, it is a means to avoid the Act’s

discretionary-function exception that would otherwise retain the

49 Id.

50 Id.

14

governmental unit’s immunity from a premises-defect claim. 51 Fraley’s

third amended petition, however, neither alleges negligent

implementation nor suggests that the University constructed the

intersection inconsistently with its design decisions. 52 Fraley does not

plead that the work done at the intersection was subpar, that existing

safety measures were not properly maintained, or that the

workmanship or materials of such measures were defective; he

complains only about the intersection’s design and the omission of safety

features.

When a plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate the

trial court’s jurisdiction, courts generally should afford the plaintiff the

opportunity to replead unless “the pleadings affirmatively negate the

existence of jurisdiction.” 53 Once the defendant’s jurisdictional plea gives

notice of the jurisdictional defect, however, and the plaintiff responds

with an amended pleading that “still does not allege facts that would

See City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523, 533 (Tex. 2022)

51

(noting the distinction between negligent-formulation-of-policy claims, which

fall within the exception, and negligent-implementation claims, which do not).

Even if the University’s construction plan included additional signage

52

or barriers that had not yet been installed, our holding in City of Grapevine v.

Sipes, 195 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. 2006), precludes a negligent-implementation claim

for the delayed installation of planned safety features. “When the

[governmental unit] first installs a traffic signal is no less discretionary than

whether to install it” for purposes of immunity under Section 101.060(a)(1). Id.

at 694.

Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226–27 (citation omitted); accord Dohlen v.

53

City of San Antonio, 643 S.W.3d 387, 397 (Tex. 2022).

15

constitute a waiver of immunity,” then the trial court should order the

case dismissed with prejudice. 54

Ordinarily, a claim based on faulty implementation of a design

requires access to the design plans through appropriate discovery to

consider whether an alleged premises defect was the result of negligent

implementation, rather than negligent design. Fraley had that

opportunity. Fraley filed four total petitions against the University

alleging a premises defect, the last in response to the University’s

jurisdictional plea. The University raised the discretionary-function

exception to the Act’s waiver of immunity in its plea, and it argued that

Fraley’s alleged dangerous condition was not a special defect.

Twenty-two months passed between Fraley’s original petition and

the third amended petition filed in response to the University’s

jurisdictional plea. During that time, the parties conducted extensive

discovery. Dozens of witnesses were deposed or responded to written

questions. Fraley has not suggested that the University withheld

requested information or refused to cooperate in discovery. Further,

Fraley does not point to any discovery that reveals facts to avoid the

discretionary decision-making exception to the waiver of immunity the

Act provides. Given the opportunity to replead, Fraley did not raise

54Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004); see also Tex.

Dep’t of Crim. Just.–Cmty. Just. Assistance Div. v. Campos, 384 S.W.3d 810,

815 (Tex. 2012) (holding that the case should be dismissed if, “after having a

reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery directed to the issue and amend

the pleadings,” the plaintiff still fails to show facts overcoming the

governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction); Matzen v. McLane, 659 S.W.3d

381, 396 & n.18 (Tex. 2021) (noting that while the plaintiff did not seek to

replead, we would deny such a request after three amended pleadings failed to

invoke a waiver of sovereign immunity for ultra vires claims).

16

negligent implementation. Because Fraley neither claimed negligent

implementation nor alleged facts to support it in pleadings filed after

the jurisdictional plea and twenty-two months of discovery, we conclude

that the court of appeals properly ordered the case dismissed rather

than remanding to the trial court for repleading.

* * *

The Tort Claims Act excludes from its waiver of immunity those

ordinary premises-defect claims based on the omission of “a traffic or

road sign, signal, or warning device,” when that omission “is a result of

discretionary action of the governmental unit.” 55 The court of appeals

correctly concluded that the claims alleged in this case fall within this

exclusion. Accordingly, we affirm its judgment.

Jane N. Bland

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: March 24, 2023

55 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.060(a)(1).

17