Before dawn on October 5, 2018, Alex Medina's car broke down on the westbound feeder road of Beltway 8 in Houston, and he walked west through the grassy right-of-way toward a convenience store, where there was no sidewalk or shoulder and a worn walking trail ran along the road.¹ A storm drain in that right-of-way, about fifteen feet from the curb, was 30 inches square and over six feet deep and was supposed to have a slotted cover.² Medina's phone data stopped at about 4:44 a.m. as he walked back toward his car, and he was found days later in the drain system.³ The Estate says the cover was missing for years, pointing to Google Street View images from 2013 to 2018, and that TxDOT's own witnesses agreed an open drain is dangerous and that pedestrians constantly used the area.⁴

Medina's representative sued TxDOT under the Tort Claims Act, alleging the open drain was a special defect.¹ TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the drain posed no threat to ordinary users of the road and that it had no actual notice, and the trial court denied the plea on August 15, 2024.² The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston), in an opinion by Justice Bridges, held that Medina, "walking far from the side of the road," was not an ordinary user following the normal course of travel and that the drain was not a special defect, so it reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on April 8, 2025.³ The Supreme Court granted review on June 12, 2026.

Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston); granted June 12, 2026. Oral argument: October 6, 2026.

• The Estate:¹ (1) whether the court of appeals properly held as a matter of law that an open storm drain off the paved road, in an area constantly used for pedestrian travel because there was no sidewalk, was not a special defect; and (2) whether it improperly resolved factual disputes and drew inferences against the plaintiff in dismissing the suit.
• TxDOT:² (1) whether an uncovered storm drain inlet in tall grass fifteen feet from a road posed a danger to ordinary users of the road; and (2) whether excavations or obstructions off highways, roads or streets fall within "special defects such as excavations or obstructions on highways, roads, or streets."

The Court reviews de novo a challenge to jurisdiction based on a failure to show a waiver of immunity, in a manner parallel to summary judgment: the evidence is viewed favorably to the nonmovant, and whether a condition is a premises defect or a special defect is a question of law.¹ The Estate argues the court of appeals was required to apply that summary-judgment-like standard and decide whether fact issues existed rather than resolve the parties' disputes.²

Whether the drain was a special defect.

Medina's Estate (Petitioner): Whether a condition is a special defect turns on the nature of the hazard, its location and ordinary use, and an uncovered drain is like an excavation or obstruction, close enough to the road to endanger ordinary users, and Medina was an ordinary user because, with no sidewalk, a pedestrian walks along the road, as the adjacent trail shows.¹ The Estate adds that Medina's own knowledge of the defect is not an element and that TxDOT had constructive notice because the cover was missing for years despite regular inspections.² In reply, it says Payne's framework was correct and widely adopted, that TxDOT reinterprets Payne as turning only on distance and never says how "close enough" is measured, and that TxDOT's own positions on ordinary use are inconsistent.³

TxDOT (Respondent): A drain inlet fifteen feet from the road in tall grass poses no danger to ordinary users of the road, and existing case law such as Payne is enough to resolve the case on that ground.⁴ Alternatively, an excavation or obstruction off the road is never a special defect because the statute requires one "on highways, roads, or streets".⁵

Whether the court of appeals resolved fact disputes against the nonmovant.

Medina's Estate (Petitioner): The court of appeals resolved disputed jurisdictional facts about pedestrian use and drew inferences against the nonmovant instead of asking whether fact issues existed.⁶ At the petition stage the Estate said TxDOT did not contest this second issue.⁷

The Estate argued the Court should clarify special-defect law and say when, if ever, an off-road condition can be a special defect, because the contours have stayed blurry since Payne and the trial court and court of appeals reached opposite conclusions on the same evidence.¹ It added that off-road pedestrian travel is common and the question will keep recurring.² TxDOT argued review should be denied because an open drain fifteen feet from the road in tall grass was not a special defect and a person walking there was not an ordinary user.³

None noted