# Robinson v. Central Texas MHMR Center

> Texas Supreme Court · November 22, 1989 · 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 98

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768860

## Case

- **Full name:** Vera Bell ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. CENTRAL TEXAS MHMR CENTER, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 22, 1989
- **Citations:** 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 98; 780 S.W.2d 169; 1989 Tex. LEXIS 123; 1989 WL 140905
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spears
- **Judges:** Doggett, Hecht, Spears, Cook, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 169 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768860

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding waiver of sovereign immunity for failure of MHMR employees to provide life preserver to patient known to suffer from epileptic seizures when responsibility of MHMR employees was to see that patients were dressed in appropriate swimming attire
- concluding that sovereign immunity was waived by the failure to provide a life preserver because the preserver was an essential part of the swimming attire that the defendant had a responsibility to provide
- holding that hospital’s failure to provide epileptic and mentally retarded patient with a life preserver to be used as part of his swimming attire, brought the case under § 101.021(2)
- applying Salcedo in determining that plaintiff stated cause of action waiving immunity by alleging that MHMR’s failure to provide life preserver to patient known to suffer epileptic seizures that caused him to lose consciousness led to patient drowning at lake while under MHMR…

## Opinion text

SPEARS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion because legislative silence since our decision in Lowe v. Texas Tech University, 540 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.1976) is tantamount to legislative approval of the statutory construction set forth in that opinion. If there has been some sort of judicial usurpation as the dissent asserts, then it is a usurpation that occurred over thirteen years ago and the legislature has long since acquiesced. Courts have repeatedly held that a negligent failure to furnish an item of property comes within the statutory waiver of immunity for “a condition or use” of property. E.g., Trinity River Authority v. Williams, 689 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.1985) (failure to provide warning signs or barrier cable across river); Lowe (failure to furnish knee brace); Overton Memorial Hospital v. McGuire, 514 S.W.2d 79 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1974), writ refd n.r.e. per curiam, 518 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.1975) (failure to provide bed rails); Mokry v. University of Texas Health Science Center, 529 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1975, writ refd n.r.e.) (failure to provide proper laboratory equipment). Today, the court says nothing new. This decision is merely a reaffirmation of prior holdings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768860. Public record. Not legal advice.