IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00089-CV
TEXAS STATE TECHNICAL COLLEGE,
Appellant
v.
MONIQUE WASHINGTON,
Appellee
From the 170th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-2103-4
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Monique Washington alleged she slipped and fell in some water in a building on
the campus of Texas State Technical College, a governmental entity. A water line had
broken in the ceiling of the building and flooded the floor. Washington sued TSTC for
the injuries she sustained in her fall. TSTC filed a plea to the jurisdiction which the trial
court denied. Because the trial court did not err in denying TSTC’s plea to the
jurisdiction, we affirm the trial court’s order.
The central issue in this appeal is whether there is some evidence of TSTC's
liability which would invoke the waiver of governmental immunity in the Texas Tort
Claims Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.021(2) (West 2011). The Tort
Claims Act generally waives governmental immunity in premises liability cases if the
governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according
to Texas law. Id.
In its plea to the jurisdiction, TSTC challenged the substance of Washington’s
jurisdictional pleadings and contends Washington failed to present evidence that TSTC
had actual or constructive knowledge of the water on the floor on which Washington
slipped, thus failing to establish a waiver of TSTC’s governmental immunity. See Tex.
Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 221 (Tex. 2004). We review the trial
court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. See id. at 228. Further, we take as
true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference
and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Id.
To recover in a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had
actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on the premises such as a
slippery substance on the floor. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex.
2014); Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992). This may be accomplished
with a showing that "(1) the defendant placed the substance on the floor, (2) the
defendant actually knew that the substance was on the floor, or (3) it is more likely than
Texas State Technical College v. Washington Page 2
not that the condition existed long enough to give the premises owner a reasonable
opportunity to discover it." Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 438 S.W.3d at 15-16 (quoting Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812, 814 (Tex. 2002)). TSTC objected to some of the
evidence Washington presented in her response to TSTC’s plea to the jurisdiction. The
trial court overruled its objection.1 However, even without that evidence, Washington
presented other evidence which raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning
TSTC’s actual or constructive knowledge of the water on the floor.
Evidence was presented by both TSTC and Washington to determine the issue of
actual or constructive knowledge. The evidence included, but was not limited to,
deposition testimony of the various people involved with the incident. Trisha
Carpenter, a maintenance worker at TSTC, heard loud rattling and a bang in the ceiling
of the Roy Dugger Center on the TSTC campus on the morning of May 24, 2011. Water
then flooded out of the ceiling. Carpenter placed “wet floor” signs at either end of the
hallway where the water was running. In between those two signs were the student
lounge and the math labs. Selby Holder, TSTC's Director of Physical Plant, was
informed by the custodial staff between approximately 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on the
same day that there was water on the floor in the Dugger Center. Gary Johnson, a TSTC
professor, arrived at the Dugger Center at about 8:30 a.m. that day to teach a 9:00 a.m.
1 TSTC objected to the incident report attached to Washington’s response to the plea to the jurisdiction
and to the portion of her affidavit that relied upon the report. On appeal, TSTC complains about the trial
court’s ruling on those objections. Because we can dispose of the appeal without considering the objected
to evidence, we need not address the issue on appeal complaining about that ruling.
Texas State Technical College v. Washington Page 3
class. When he walked into the Dugger Center, people were already trying to
“respond” to the water on the floor. Johnson tried to help with barricades and
handmade signs. The water was by the math lab, filling much of that hallway, and was
in the lounge. Johnson considered it to be “a lot of water.” The flow of the water had
not been stopped by the time Johnson left to teach his class. Abigail Lewsader, a TSTC
employee, could see that the floors were still wet and could still see pools of water that
were being cleaned up at 11:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. as she left her class.
Washington stated that on May 24, 2011, she entered the Roy Dugger Center for
a morning math class. While walking through the lounge area, she slipped and fell on
water that was on the floor. Two custodians were standing by the door and when
Washington fell, one looked at her and said, “My bad.” Documents submitted by both
TSTC and Washington indicated that Washington’s math class began at 10:00 a.m.
Further, Lewsader stated that Washington reported the fall to her and that the fall
occurred at 9:35 in the morning on May 24, 2011.2
To avoid dismissal on the basis of governmental immunity, all Washington had
to do was show that there was a disputed material fact regarding subject matter
jurisdiction. See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004).
Taking as true all evidence favorable to Washington as the nonmovant, and indulging
every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in Washington's favor, the
2 This evidence was not part of the evidence to which TSTC objected.
Texas State Technical College v. Washington Page 4
evidence submitted shows that at least an hour before Washington slipped and fell,
TSTC knew about the water on the floor in the area where Washington slipped. The
evidence also showed that TSTC was still trying to clean up the water in the area hours
after Washington fell. Further, it could be inferred that TSTC knew the water was still
on the floor when a custodian said “my bad” after Washington fell. This evidence was
enough to raise a fact issue as to whether TSTC had actual or constructive knowledge of
the water on the floor on which Washington slipped and whether TSTC’s immunity
was waived.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying TSTC’s plea to the jurisdiction.
TSTC’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s order is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2015
[CV06]
Texas State Technical College v. Washington Page 5