AUSTIN - The Texas Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the city of Houston over an officer’s automobile collision.
The suit was brought by Maria Gomez, who claims she was injured when an officer responding to an armed robbery caused the collision.
According to the high court’s June 20 opinion, on the morning of Christmas Eve 2011 the officer was on patrol in his marked police vehicle when dispatch reported an armed robbery in progress. Due to heavy rain, the officer had the discretion whether to activate his emergency lights, siren, or both.
The officer testified by affidavit that he turned on his emergency lights, but there was some evidence to the contrary. It is undisputed that he did not engage his siren. It is also undisputed that there was “moderate” traffic and the streets were wet, the opinion states.
On his way to the scene, the officer never exceeded the posted speed limit and testified that as he approached the intersection he reached down to raise the volume on his police radio. When he looked up again, the traffic light ahead of him had turned yellow. The officer applied his brakes, but his car slid into the intersection due to the wet road.
The opinion states Gomez was driving through the intersection at the time, and the front left of her vehicle collided with the front right of the police car. Gomez testified by affidavit that her light was green when she entered the intersection. Following an internal investigation, the officer received a departmental reprimand for being “at fault,” which he did not contest, but he was not cited for violating any traffic law.
After Gomez sued, the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that it retained immunity based on the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception.
The trial court granted the city’s plea and the decision was reversed on appeal, as justices held there was a fact question as to whether the officer acted recklessly.
The Supreme Court disagreed, reversing the judgment and concluding the evidence demonstrates, “at most,” a momentary lapse of judgment amounting to ordinary negligence, and that there was thus no fact issue as to the officer’s recklessness.
“Because there was no disputed fact issue as to Simmons’s recklessness, the City’s immunity was not waived and its plea to the jurisdiction should have been granted,” the opinion states. “Accordingly… we grant the City’s petition for review, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and render judgment dismissing Gomez’s claim against the City for lack of jurisdiction.”
Case No. 23-0858
