houstonpd.png

Houston Police Department

HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has declined to reverse a ruling denying the City of Houston’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging an HPD officer caused an automobile collision.

The lawsuit was brought by Claudia Huerta, who alleges that on Feb. 17, 2023, an HPD officer was working in the course and scope of his employment when he caused a collision between his marked police vehicle and her vehicle, resulting in personal injuries and property damage.

Huerta noted in her petition that her allegations were supported by a certified crash report filed by HPD’s own investigator, which stated that at the time of the collision the officer was “checking by” on a vehicle pursuit case “but did not have his emergency equipment activated.”

She claims that even if evidence ultimately shows the officer was responding to an emergency call, he didn’t drive “with appropriate regard for the safety of all persons” and is not relieved of “the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others.”

Court records show the city filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied, leading to the appeal.

On appeal, the city argued that Huerta’s pleadings do not establish a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and failed to plead facts that would negate the officer’s immunity.

“Because Huerta was not required to plead facts negating an affirmative defense, we find no merit in the City’s argument based on official immunity,” states the 14th Court’s Oct. opinion.

The city also argued that Huerta’s pleading is deficient because she fails to allege facts that, if true, would negate application of the emergency and 911 exceptions in the TTCA.

“Assuming the exceptions are implicated, the City argues that Huerta’s allegations are too conclusory to negate the exceptions,” the opinion states. “We disagree. Finding no merit in any of the City’s contentions, we overrule its sole issue and affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss.”

Appeals case No. 14-24-00767-CV

More News