Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

City of Pasadena v. Thomas – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In City of Pasadena v. Thomas, 263 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2006, no pet.), Thomas was injured while using a machete furnished by a City supervisor. See Thomas, 263 S.W.3d at 44-45.

Thomas alleged that the City failed to provide protective gloves and the machete "had no guard on the handle to protect one's hand from sliding easily from the handle and over the blade." Id. at 46.

The First Court held:

"The allegations in this case do not demonstrate a waiver of governmental immunity. Thus, assuming that a machete with a hilt may be safer than one without a hilt, Bishop II 4 would not espouse the conclusion that a hilt is "an integral safety component," even given that a machete is dangerous for the very reason that it is sharp." Id. at 47.