is whether a person of ordinary intelligence would have anticipated the danger that his negligence created. Id. The TTCA’s property waiver requires more than the property’s mere involvement, and property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition making the injury possible. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 343. Accordingly, the TTCA’s property waiver has been described as requiring a “direct nexus,” a “close causal relationship,” and “a direct and immediate relationship” between the property’s use and the injury or death. Here, the failure to restrain Mark properly in the second patrol car is an allegation of non-use of property, for which the TTCA does not waive immunity from suit. See López v. McMillion, 113 S.W.3d 447, 450 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Lacy v. Rusk State Hosp., 31 S.W.3d 625, 630
holding that failure to lock door through which patient escaped and later drowned was nonuse of property for which ttca did not waive immunity 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 a ttca claim based on an officers allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort not negligence 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