Physical Health Plan
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Fitness
  • Mental Health
  • Recipes
  • Workouts
  • Food & Nutrition
  • Home
  • Fitness
  • Mental Health
  • Recipes
  • Workouts
  • Food & Nutrition
No Result
View All Result
Physical Health Plan
No Result
View All Result
Home Uncategorized

Texas Supreme Court Affirms Governmental Immunity in Pair of Decisions

Related articles

What Should You Do If You’re in a Car Accident While Out of State?

Case study: Snapsheet’s virtual claims management technology

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

[Read More…]

Previous Post

SAN Group adds N.Y. agency

Next Post

February 25 Is Deadline For Louisiana Policyholders to File Ida Proof of Loss

Related Posts

Uncategorized

What Should You Do If You’re in a Car Accident While Out of State?

October 9, 2024
Uncategorized

Case study: Snapsheet’s virtual claims management technology

May 20, 2022
Uncategorized

Arbella Insurance partners up to launch Insurance Academy

May 20, 2022
Uncategorized

Ford Recalls 39,000 U.S. SUVs After Engine Fire Reports

May 20, 2022
Uncategorized

Growth of Massive New Mexico Wildfire Slowed

May 20, 2022
Uncategorized

Policies’ Arbitration, AOB Endorsements are Unconstitutional, Florida Lawsuit Claims

May 20, 2022

Search..

No Result
View All Result

Subscribe Us

By clicking submit, I authorize Physical Health Plan and its affiliated companies to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, (2) supplement the information that I provide with additional information lawfully obtained from other sources, like demographic data from public sources, interests inferred from web page views, or other data relevant to what might interest me, like past purchase or location data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email with offers for goods and services from any category at the email address provided, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Recommended

Step by Step Instructions to Choose the Right Running Chews

December 24, 2021

Hot Yoga Is No Better for You Than Regular Yoga, Study Says

December 23, 2021
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Service
  • Unsubscribe
  • Privacy Choices

© 2025 Physical Health Plan. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Fitness
  • Mental Health
  • Recipes
  • Workouts
  • Food & Nutrition

© 2025 Physical Health Plan. All Rights Reserved.

Skip to content
Open toolbar Accessibility Tools

Accessibility Tools

  • Increase TextIncrease Text
  • Decrease TextDecrease Text
  • GrayscaleGrayscale
  • High ContrastHigh Contrast
  • Negative ContrastNegative Contrast
  • Light BackgroundLight Background
  • Links UnderlineLinks Underline
  • Readable FontReadable Font
  • Reset Reset