“have been proximately caused by the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment or by a condition or use of tangible real or personal property.” Holland v. City of Houston, 41 F.Supp.2d 678, 710-11 (S.D.Tex.1999). Tangible property is property that is capable of being handled, touched, or seen. Id. The plaintiffs allege that the City negligently trained and supervised Thompson, including by implementing the policies and procedures that led to the shooting. These claims do not involve motor-driven vehicles or tangible property. The City’s immunity is not waived for these claims. Id. at 712. To the extent the plaintiffs claim that the City is liable for Thompson’s negligent use of a firearm, that is an intentional tort claim, not a negligence claim. See id. (<HOLDING>). The TTCA does not waive the City’s sovereign
holding that when the essence of the claim is either negligent or intentional misrepresentation the claim could lie in tort holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim 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 economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort