Court held that “an allegation of defective or inadequate tangible property” was not necessary to state a cause of action under the TTCA as it existed at that time “if ‘some use’ of the property, rather than ‘some condition’ of the property, is alleged to be a contributing factor of the injury.” Id. at 32 (noting that statute required that provisions of act be liberally construed to achieve its purpose and stating, “To hold that the Act requires an allegation of defective or inadequate property when such an allegation is neither expressly nor impliedly required by section 3 would place a restrictive interpretation on the ‘condition or use’ language” which would violate legislative mandate to liberally construe act’s provisions). The supreme court concluded tha aumont 2006, pet. filed) (<HOLDING>). However, the supreme court later specifically
holding that a ttca claim based on an officers allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort not negligence holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that the amendment was a use regulation which was in effect a condition on the use of property in the affected zone holding that use of drug and forceps in delivery of baby who ended up suffering from cerebral palsy was use of tangible property establishing that claim could have been brought against hospital as governmental entity under ttca holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution