We are responsible for using evidence that the site owner has received reports of potential danger or complaints of previous injuries to infer actual knowledge. See University of Texas-Pan American v. Aguilar, 251 pp.3d 511, 513 (Tex.2008). There is no direct evidence of UTEP`s knowledge in the records we have. Actual knowledge can also be proven by circumstantial evidence; But even then, only if the evidence, directly or by reasonable inference, supports that conclusion. If the circumstantial evidence contains two equally plausible but opposite conclusions, neither can be inferred. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 pp.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1998); Litton Indus. Prod., Inc.
v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Texas 1984). If the circumstantial evidence is so small that the choice between plausible opposing conclusions is nothing more than speculation, legally it is not evidence at all. Lozano v. Lozano, 52 pp. W.3d 141, 148 (Tex.2001). The Office of Legal Affairs advises the University of Texas at El Paso and the president, administrators, faculty and staff when acting within the scope of their employment. Mary Solis Director of Compliance and Ethics University of Texas at El Paso 500 West University El Paso, TX 79968 (915) 747-6087 FAX: (915) 747-6486 [email protected] His legal expertise focuses on employment law and civil litigation. She has represented local and national clients before administrative agencies as well as state and federal courts.
“Priscilla is a respected lawyer who has demonstrated her commitment to the legal profession,” said UTEP President Heather Wilson. “This will be an asset to the university and its efforts to advance the Paso del Norte region.” “I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as UTEP`s General Counsel,” said Mr. Castillo. “As a UTEP alumnus, I am honored to return to university and give back to my community.” Carolee “Carrie” King Senior Vice President and General Counsel The Medical Branch of the University of Texas at Galveston 301 University Boulevard Galveston, TX 77555-0133 (409) 772-1904 FAX: (409) 772-5064 [email protected] In general, the State and its subdivisions enjoy sovereign immunity from tort unless expressly waived. See Tex.Civ.Prac. §§ 101.001(3)(A),(B), 101.025; Grafschaft Cameron v. Braun, 80 S.W.3d 549, 554 (Tex.2002). The Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) provides for a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims for defects of premises. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.022(a)(Vernon Supp. 2008); see Brown, 80 p.w.3d at 554.
The TTCA provides that a government entity is liable for injury or death caused by a condition on real property “if the government entity, if it is an individual, would be liable to the plaintiff under Texas law.” Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code ann. § 101.021(2). However, the legislation further limits the government`s potential liability by increasing the tax held by an applicant to the same obligation that an individual owes to a licensee on private property. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.022(a). Therefore, a government agency is only liable for a construction defect if an individual would be liable to a licensee in the same circumstances. Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 554. The owner must give usual notice to a licensee of a condition that poses an unreasonable risk of damage of which the owner is actually aware and which the licensee is not aware, or to make the condition reasonably safe. State Department of Highways and Publicity. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 237 (Texas 1992).
The element of “actual knowledge” of a defect in the terrain requires knowledge that the dangerous situation existed at the time of the accident. City of Corsica v. Stewart, 249 pp.3d 412, 414-15 (Tex.2008)(per curiam). Constructive knowledge, on the other hand, can be established by facts or conclusions that a dangerous condition could develop over time. Each UT institution has an ethics officer, whose contact information can be found below. If an employee has questions about legislation or ethical issues, they are asked to contact their supervisor or campus ethics officer. The primary goal of the Center for Metrics-Based Planning is to examine and improve how metrics and analytics are used in a planning framework to improve organizational outcomes at UTEP and other institutions. The email address cannot be subscribed. Please try again.
This is an interim appeal against a rejection of the University of Texas at El Paso`s (“UTEP”) objection to jurisdiction. In the first edition, UTEP argues that Amalia Muro`s claim for liability does not fall within the waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act because: (1) Ms. Muro could not prove that the university was actually aware of the condition that allegedly caused her violation; (2) the condition did not present an unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) the condition was easily perceptible and therefore cannot form the basis of an obligation. In the second edition, UTEP asserts that even if Ms. Muro`s claim meets the requirements of the Tort Claims Act, it is time-barred under the Texas Recreational Use Act because Ms. Muro failed to provide evidence that UTEP acted with gross negligence. We go back and give back. The mission of the Information Security Office (ISO) is to protect information acquired and found throughout the university by conducting risk assessments for all sensitive information, promoting security-related training and awareness programs, monitoring academic systems, and conducting audits and compliance to support the university`s missions and objectives.
A plea of lack of jurisdiction is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of first instance over the subject-matter of the dispute. See University of Texas at El Paso v. Moreno, 172 pp. W.3d 281, 284 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, without pet), citing Texas Dept. Jones, 8 pp.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999). In the absence of an effective waiver of sovereign immunity, a court of first instance has no substantive jurisdiction and the claim must be dismissed. Since jurisdiction ratione materiae is a question of law, the decision of a trial court on a plea is reviewed de novo for jurisdiction. See Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 pp.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004); Stadt Midland v. Sullivan, 33 pp.3d 1, 6 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. dism`d w.o.j.).
Castillo received his bachelor`s degree in English and American literature and political science from UTEP. During his undergraduate studies, Castillo attended the UTEP Law School Readiness Institute. She then received a full scholarship to New York University School of Law. After law school, Castillo worked at a large law firm in New York City. Castillo then returned to El Paso, where she most recently worked as a partner at a local law firm. M. Sanaz Okhovat Chief Compliance Officer University of Texas at Dallas 800 West Campbell Road SPN 15 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 (972) 883-2306 FAX: (972) 883-2212 [email protected] Based on Mr. Guerra`s testimony, one could conclude whether or not UTEP created the rest.
Ms. Muro did not identify any other evidence that would make one conclusion more plausible than the other. Nothing more, Mr. Guerra`s testimony creates nothing more than the mere suspicion that UTEP created the situation and therefore cannot be the basis for a question of fact. See Litton Indus. Prod., Inc., 668 S.W.2d at 324. The first issue is durable. UTEP filed its complaint with the courts on 14 May 2007. UTEP provided two grounds for dismissal: (1) Ms. Muro did not present sufficient facts and evidence of UTEP`s gross negligence, as required by the Texas Recreational Use Statute; or (2) Ms. Muro has not been able to prove a waiver of the University`s sovereign immunity.
The Court of First Instance rejected UTEP`s plea on 1 June 2007. In its order, the court ruled: (1) that the Texas Recreational Use Act does not apply; (2) Ms. Muro has presented sufficient facts to prove UTEP`s gross negligence; and (3) Ms. Muro adduced sufficient facts to establish UTEP`s actual knowledge of the defect in question. UTEP filed this injunction under Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code on June 20, 2007. See Tex.Civ.Prac. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon 2008). Where a plea of lack of jurisdiction casts doubt on the existence of adjudicative facts, the reviewing court will consider the relevant evidence presented by the parties in order to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. If the contested jurisdictional facts also involve the merits of the plaintiff`s plea, the trial court considers the evidence to determine whether there is a question of fact. Id., p.
227. In such a situation, the trial court must issue a decision that “reflects” summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c). Id., p. 228. If the evidence raises a question of fact in relation to the question of jurisdiction, the trial court must reject the objection and allow the question to be decided by the investigator. Id., pp. 227-28. If the relevant evidence is not contested or does not raise a question of fact of jurisdiction, the court of first instance shall decide on the objection as a point of law. Id. to the 228th woman.
Karen Adams General Counsel University of Texas Rio Grande Valley 1201 West University Drive Edinburgh, TX 78539 Telephone: (956) 365-8785 FAX: [email protected] The University of Texas at El Paso is a large, complex and growing educational and research institution whose successful management requires firm control over all activities through a system of financial and operational procedures. The Office of Audit and Advisory Services (OFA) has the key role of overseeing management`s application of these procedures. Castillo is an associate member of the George McAlmon American Inn of Court, a graduate of the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce Class 38 El Paso, and past president of the El Paso chapter of the Federal Bar Association.