## Facts

- City police stopped Russell Gordon on suspicion of driving while intoxicated; he refused field sobriety testing and was arrested without resistance.
- Officers applied handcuffs at the scene and again during transport from a station to the city jail.
- Gordon alleged he complained the handcuffs were too tight on both occasions and officers ignored his complaints.
- Gordon alleged wrist injuries and sued the City under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), characterizing the conduct as negligent use of tangible personal property (handcuffs).
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity because the claim arose out of an intentional tort (battery) within the TTCA’s intentional-tort exception.
- The trial court denied the plea; the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court reviewed on interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that officers applied excessively tight handcuffs during an arrest state a negligence claim based on use of property under the TTCA.
2. Whether such allegations instead “arise out of” the intentional tort of battery, triggering the TTCA’s intentional-tort exception and preserving governmental immunity.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The Court held the claim is, in substance, a battery (excessive force) claim, not negligence.
- Because the TTCA does not waive immunity for claims arising out of intentional torts, the City’s immunity was not waived.
- The Court rendered judgment dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- The TTCA waives governmental immunity for certain personal injury claims caused by the negligent use of tangible personal property. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.021.
- The TTCA’s waiver does not apply to claims “arising out of” intentional torts, including assault and battery. § 101.057(2).
- Excessive force used in effecting an otherwise lawful arrest is properly analyzed as battery; lawful authority to arrest does not extend to unreasonable or excessive force.
- For TTCA purposes, courts look to the substance of the pleaded conduct, not the plaintiff’s label; a plaintiff cannot avoid the intentional-tort exception by pleading excessive-force allegations as negligence.
- A battery characterization does not require intent to cause the specific injury alleged; it is sufficient that the officer intentionally applied the force or contact and the complaint is that the force was excessive.

## Conclusion

Allegations that officers injured an arrestee by applying overly tight handcuffs during arrest and transport constitute an excessive-force battery claim that falls within the TTCA’s intentional-tort exception, so a municipality’s governmental immunity is not waived and the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2014)