negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury and was a factor without which no harm would have been incurred. Excel Corp. v. Apodaca, 81 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Tex.2002). “ ‘The word “substantial” is used to denote the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility, rather than in the so-called “philosophic sense,” which includes every one of the great number of events without which any happening would not have occurred.’ ” Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Tex.1995) (quoting Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex.1991)). The test for fore ex.App.-Tyler 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Because we hold that only a non-use of
holding that ttca does not waive immunity from suit for claim whose substance is that patients death was caused by hospital staffs failure to restrain patient after having learned that he was suicidal holding that claim based on failure to restrain inmate by handcuffing or shackling was allegation of nonuse of property for which ttca did not waive immunity holding that errors in medical judgment do not provide waiver of immunity under ttca holding that ttca did not waive immunity for claim based on failure properly to evaluate and to restrain patient who was assaulted by fellow patients after exiting unlocked door holding that failure to lock door through which patient escaped and later drowned was nonuse of property for which ttca did not waive immunity