on appeal, that both the TTCA’s motor-vehicle and its property waivers waived immunity from suit for his claim based on the negligent failure to secure Mark properly in the second patrol car. 1. TTCA’s Motor-Vehicle Waiver For the motor-vehicle waiver to apply, Mark’s death had to “arise[ ] from the operation or use of’ the second police car. Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.021(1)(A). For the waiver to apply, a nexus must exist between the operation or d 860, 863 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied) ("If the [school bus driver's] act involved only supervision or control [of children passengers], immunity has not been waived, even if the act took place on or near the motor vehicle.”); Amador v. San Antonio State Hosp., 993 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 5 .See Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Petta, 44
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 a ttca claim based on an officers allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort not negligence 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