HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling denying the city of Houston’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought after a fire truck collided with a vehicle in a grocery store parking lot.Â
The lawsuit was brought by Hollis Holmes, who sued the city for negligence.Â
Court records show that on Sept. 11, 2022, a firefighter drove a Houston Fire Department ladder truck to an HE-B grocery store with three other firefighters on board. Two firefighters waited in the truck while the two other firefighters went inside the grocery store to purchase groceries for the fire station’s crew to eat during their twenty-four-hour shift.Â
According to the fire truck driver’s testimony, the engine remained running during the forty five minutes the two firefighters were in the store “just in case we got an emergency call for a ladder truck while on our grocery run.”Â
In her petition, Holmes asserted that as she drove eastbound in the grocery store parking lot, the HFD fire truck collided with her car. She alleged that the fire truck driver was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the city when the collision occurred and “carelessly failed to look ahead and make sure it was safe” to pull out from the truck’s parked position.
According to the firefighter, Holmes’ car had stopped in the fire truck’s blind spot and as he attempted to pull out the truck from where he parked in front of the store, and “the passenger front tire ring” on the fire truck caught the car’s “passenger side back plastic bumper cover and pulled it off.”
In response to the suit, the city filed a traditional motion for summary judgment based on governmental immunity, which the trial court denied.
On appeal, the city argued that an employee is generally not in the scope of his employment while driving to or from work, even if traveling in the company vehicle and if the employee is “on call” twenty-four hours a day.
The First Court disagreed, affirming the trial court ruling on March 24.Â
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Holmes, and indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in her favor, the evidence reflects that (the firefighter) was not acting under the guise of a typical grocery shopper, given that he was required to remain prepared, with the engine running, in case he was called to an emergency during the grocery run,” the opinion states. “The grocery trip was not made to purchase (the firefighter’s) own personal groceries, or even just for those four firefighters with him at the store, but for the entire on-duty crew.Â
“Given that he was required to remain ready and able to cover any emergency that arose during the grocery run, there is at least a fact question as to whether he was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the fire truck struck Holmes’ car.”
Appeals case No. 01-25-00359-CV
