with respect to all of Ballard’s claims, and we remand the cause with instructions for the trial court to grant the City’s jurisdictional plea in its entirety. 1 . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 101.001-.109 (Vernon 1997 & Supp.2004-2005). 2 . Although the petition does not say so, the parties’ appellate and trial briefing indicates that the second car’s back door was unlocked. 3 . Ballard’s petition alleged that the actions underlying this third basis for liability constituted negligence. Nowhere did Ballard cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2002) or claim that his constitutional or statutory rights had been violated; additionally, no one construed these allegations on appeal or below as anything but negligence. 4 . See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542-43 (Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>); Dallas County Mental Health & Mental
holding that ttcas motorvehicle waiver did not apply to claim whose gravamen was that bus drivers failure to supervise the public  by for example failing to supervise tortfeasor passenger and failing to return to pick up victim passenger  allowed tortfeasor who had threatened victim on bus to assault victim after both had exited holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive holding port authority required to provide basic loss benefits under section 204a4 of nofault act regardless of whether passenger continued to be occupant as bus was involved in an accident when passenger struck by passing vehicle after alighting from bus holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction