Houston Police Department
HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling denying the city of Houston’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought over a police officer’s motor vehicle collision.
Jose Brigido Sanchez Antonio filed a negligence claim against the city, alleging that a marked police vehicle driven by a Houston Police Department officer rear-ended his vehicle.
Court records show the city answered the suit and asserted governmental immunity as a bar to Antonio’s claims.
The city filed a rule 91a motion to dismiss, asserting that Antonio alleged insufficient facts to support his assertions that the officer was in the scope of his employment as a city employee and performing a governmental function at the time of the alleged collision.
Antonio responded to the motion and filed an amended petition, arguing that the officer was in the course and scope of his employment with the city at the time of the accident, and that he was not responding to an emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation.
Houston filed a reply, arguing that Antonio’s assertions that the officer was in the course and scope of his employment with HPD at the time of the accident are conclusory and unsupported by facts.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the city appealed, challenging the denial of its rule 91a motion.
On July 9, the 14th Court found that Antonio’s course and scope assertions are supported by the alleged facts that the officer was a city employee and driving a city police vehicle at all relevant times.
“These are not conclusory assertions, and they raise the presumption that (the officer) was in the scope of his employment with the City when the accident occurred,” the opinion states. “And because the City seeks dismissal under rule 91a, the court could not consider any evidence purporting to rebut the presumption even if the City has presented some.
“For these reasons, the trial court did not err by denying the City’s 91a motion to dismiss.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00486-CV
