×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Careless Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Texas Prison States a Claim
The Texas 14th Court of Appeals at Houston reversed a trial court's
dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit which claimed injuries consequent to the
careless removal of lead-based paint from an aging Texas state prison.
Early in 2000, Howard Williams was a prisoner at the 1800-man Darrington
State Prison in southern Texas. Prison employees were then working
feverishly to prepare the prison for an inspection and audit by the
American Correctional Association (ACA). Among the many activities then
underway was the frenzied removal of lead-based paint from the hallways and
living areas of the decrepit Darrington facility.
In his complaint Williams alleged that employees of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the agency that operates the 160,000-man state
prison system, negligently used various cutting and grinding machines, heat
guns and torches to remove lead-based paint from the corridors and housing
areas of the prison. Williams further complained that this negligent use
caused lead-based paint dust and lead oxide gas to be released and that he
was seriously injured by being exposed to these potentially lethal
contaminants.
Williams named Dale Denault, a prison guard, and later amended his petition
to add TDCJ as a defendant. Denault was properly served but, sadly, TDCJ
was not because Williams provided only a post office box address for the
agency.
Thereafter, Denault filed and the trial court granted a motion to dismiss
Williams' claims as frivolous. The court's dismissal order included the
following language: "Any and all claims not previously ruled upon are
hereby denied."
The appellate court, with a wink and a nod to Williams, noted that "we have
jurisdiction to review this appeal even though TDCJ was not served and has
not filed an answer." Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §14.003(a)
provides that a court may dismiss a claim "either before or after service
of process." The trial court's audacious pre-service dismissal and judgment
in favor of TDCJ was a final order and, therefore, properly raised on appeal.
Because Williams sued under the Texas Tort Claims Act and because the act
provides that a governmental unit is liable for damages caused by the
wrongful act of an employee acting within the scope of his employment, and
because Denault was an employee and not a governmental unit, the appellate
court dismissed the appeal against Denault.
All claims against TDCJ, which was unquestionably a "governmental unit"
were, however, upheld and the matter was remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings. The ruling was unpublished. See: Williams v. Denault,
2001 WL 1249311 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.), 2001).
dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit which claimed injuries consequent to the
careless removal of lead-based paint from an aging Texas state prison.
Early in 2000, Howard Williams was a prisoner at the 1800-man Darrington
State Prison in southern Texas. Prison employees were then working
feverishly to prepare the prison for an inspection and audit by the
American Correctional Association (ACA). Among the many activities then
underway was the frenzied removal of lead-based paint from the hallways and
living areas of the decrepit Darrington facility.
In his complaint Williams alleged that employees of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the agency that operates the 160,000-man state
prison system, negligently used various cutting and grinding machines, heat
guns and torches to remove lead-based paint from the corridors and housing
areas of the prison. Williams further complained that this negligent use
caused lead-based paint dust and lead oxide gas to be released and that he
was seriously injured by being exposed to these potentially lethal
contaminants.
Williams named Dale Denault, a prison guard, and later amended his petition
to add TDCJ as a defendant. Denault was properly served but, sadly, TDCJ
was not because Williams provided only a post office box address for the
agency.
Thereafter, Denault filed and the trial court granted a motion to dismiss
Williams' claims as frivolous. The court's dismissal order included the
following language: "Any and all claims not previously ruled upon are
hereby denied."
The appellate court, with a wink and a nod to Williams, noted that "we have
jurisdiction to review this appeal even though TDCJ was not served and has
not filed an answer." Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §14.003(a)
provides that a court may dismiss a claim "either before or after service
of process." The trial court's audacious pre-service dismissal and judgment
in favor of TDCJ was a final order and, therefore, properly raised on appeal.
Because Williams sued under the Texas Tort Claims Act and because the act
provides that a governmental unit is liable for damages caused by the
wrongful act of an employee acting within the scope of his employment, and
because Denault was an employee and not a governmental unit, the appellate
court dismissed the appeal against Denault.
All claims against TDCJ, which was unquestionably a "governmental unit"
were, however, upheld and the matter was remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings. The ruling was unpublished. See: Williams v. Denault,
2001 WL 1249311 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.), 2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Williams v. Denault
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2001 WL 1249311 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.), 2001). |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |