Hospital’s immunity has been waived as to the appellees’ claim that the Hospital was negligent in “using or misusing tangible personal property; specifically, the suspenders and pipe from the walker which were within the State Hospital’s custody, possession and control.” C. Failure to Act The appellees assert numerous additional claims regarding the Hospital’s failure to act. Failures in conduct, including the failure to adequately train employees, do not involve the use of tangible personal property. See Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Tex.2001); Clemons v. Citizens Medical Center, 54 S.W.3d 463, 467-69 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi Aug.9, 2001, no pet. h.); see also Texas Youth Comm’n v. Ryan, 889 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s order
holding section 101065 is exception to waiver of governmental immunity holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government holding that section 41  16 does not grant a waiver for claims of negligent supervision holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary holding negligence in supervision and evaluation of student in governmental units custody does not trigger waiver of immunity