The Texas Supreme Court has reversed a Houston [14th] Court of Appeals decision that a plaintiff in a personal injury action against the City of Houston raised a material fact issue as to whether a police officer responding to an emergency acted with willful or wanton disregard of Plaintiff’s safety when he collided with her vehicle in an intersection.
City of Houston v. Gomez (No. 23-0858; June 20, 2025) arose from a collision between a Houston police cruiser and another vehicle. At the time of the accident, the police officer was on the way to the scene of an armed robbery in progress. He did not engage his siren, and there was a dispute over whether his emergency lights were turned on. Approaching an intersection, the officer looked down to raise the volume of his radio. When he looked up, the light had turned yellow, compelling him to brake suddenly. His car slid on the wet streets into the intersection, striking Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff sued the city for negligence. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on the Texas Tort Claims Act’s “emergency exception,” § 101.055(2), CPRC. The trial court granted the plea, which a divided court of appeals reversed after en banc consideration. The city sought review.
In a per curiam opinion, SCOTX reversed and dismissed the case. Section 101.055(2) immunizes a governmental entity from liability if the claim arises “from an action of an employee while responding to an emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation if the action is in compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable to emergency action.” If there is no applicable law or ordinance, the claimant must prove that the action was “taken with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” Additionally, § 545.401(a), Transportation Code, defines “reckless driving” as involving “wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property,” which SCOTX has “affirmed that recklessness for purposes of the emergency exception likewise involves a ‘willful or wanton disregard’ for the safety of others” (citation omitted). SCOTX has previously held that neither a “momentary judgment lapse” nor “mere inattentiveness” establishes “recklessness.”
Here the parties did not dispute that the officer was responding to an emergency call nor that the emergency exception applied. The only question, consequently, was whether the officer acted with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s safety. Looking to the evidence, the Court concluded that: (1) the officer’s conduct in looking down to adjust his radio suggests that “he might have momentarily acted without due care,” not willful or wanton disregard; and (2) the officer was not reckless, though he may have been negligent, because he was driving at the posted speed limit and applied his brakes before entering the intersection. The court of appeals thus erred by determining that a material fact issue existed as to the officer’s conduct.
