The Texas Supreme Court recently delivered rulings on a pair of cases challenging the City of San Antonio’s governmental immunity, and in both instances the court affirmed that the Texas Torts Claim Act protects a city from liability in matters involving a police officer’s conduct during a pursuit of a fleeing suspect or performing routine traffic management.
The first case, Maspero v. City of San Antonio, centered on the question of whether a city’s governmental immunity is waived under the Tort Claims Act for a police officer’s use or operation of a patrol car while in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. The case looks at a 2012 incident where San Antonio police officer Kimberly Kory was participating in an investigation of a drug- trafficking operation and was in vehicular pursuit of a fleeing suspect, David Rodriguez. As Mr. Rodriguez was attempting to evade apprehension, his vehicle collided with the Masperos’ vehicle, resulting in the Masperos’ injuries and the death of two of their children. The Masperos sued the City, asserting the Act waived the City’s immunity because their injuries arose from Kory’s operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle.
The City claimed that the Masperos’ injuries were too attenuated from the officer’s use of a motor vehicle to trigger the relevant section of the Tort Claims Act and that the Act’s emergency exception rendered the Act inapplicable to the Masperos’ claims. A trial court accepted the City’s plea, and the court of appeals reversing, arguing the Act waived the City’s immunity.
In the Court’s reversal, it said that the Act’s emergency exception applied as a matter of law, as Kory was reacting to an emergency situation. The Court said that Kory’s alleged failure to comply with internal department policies did not equate to a failure to comply with “laws and ordinances” and that her alleged failure to use her siren at the time of the collision neither violated the Transportation Code nor had a causal nexus to the Masperos’ injuries.
The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
In the second case, City of San Antonio v. Riojas, the Court examined what a governmental defendant must show to demonstrate a law-enforcement-officer’s good faith for purposes of establishing the officer’s official immunity from suit when the plaintiff’s injuries occurred in the context of routine traffic management.
The incident in question involved a San Antonio police officer, Tristan, who while driving on an interstate highway activated his emergency lights to warn approaching motorists of a traffic slowdown ahead. The plaintiff, Riojas, was three lanes to the left of Tristian, when he wrecked his motorcycle after the car in front of him stopped abruptly. Riojas sued the City, alleging that Tristan acted negligently by turning on his emergency lights and that the lights caused Riojas’ accident.
In order for Tristan to not be personally liable under Section 101.021(1)(B) of the Tort Claims Act, the City was required to prove that he was acting in good faith when he turned on his emergency lights. The trial court denied the City’s plea that its governmental immunity had not been waived, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals cited the Wadewitz v. Montgomery need-risk balancing test, saying that Tristan had to show he balanced the need for action against the potential risks of taking it before activating his emergency lights. The court of appeals said Tristan failed the balancing test.
In The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ ruling, holding that it had applied the wrong test because Wadewitz and cases like it involved involved a high-speed pursuit or some other emergency action carrying an inherent risk of harm to the public. The Court rather turned to Telthorster v. Tennel, which limited the need-risk-balancing requirement to the emergency-response context. Telthorster determined that when a routine law-enforcement activity is at issue, the governmental defendant is only required to show that a reasonably prudent officer faced with the same circumstances could have believed his conduct was justified. The Court said Tristan’s affidavit passed that test.
Rojas’ claims against the City were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Source: Texas Courts
