Bay City, Texas v. Wade McFarland
13-15-00122-CV
| Tex. App. | May 12, 2015Background
- Bay City sued for injuries from a June 5, 2011 collision involving Officer Kunz; trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction; City appeals alleging sovereign and official immunity; Kunz was responding to a domestic disturbance with weapons; both patrol cars had lights/sirens and yielded through an intersection; officer slowed, proceeded under 546.001(2), plaintiff alleged negligent hiring/supervision and vicarious liability; issue revolves around emergency-immunity waiver and officer good-faith discretion.
- Plaintiff McFarland claims immunity should not bar suit due to reckless/deliberate conduct by Kunz; Bay City argues 101.055(2) emergency exception applies and immunity remains; record shows Kunz complied with laws and acted in good faith; expert opinions fail to prove recklessness; court must determine subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Kunz was responding to an emergency with lights/sirens; she slowed at the intersection, complied with 546.001(2); plaintiff did not yield; the dash-cam video lacks speed data but evidence shows no recklessness; court held immunity not waived.
- Official immunity shields discretionary acts in good faith within authority; public policy favors avoiding liability for split-second policing decisions; good-faith test balances need vs. risk.
- The emergency-immunity framework relies on whether conduct was in compliance with law and not reckless; courts rely on consistency with Hartman/Kuhn/Sparks lines; the court ultimately held immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 101.055(2) waives immunity | McFarland contends immunity should apply, but disputes recklessness. | Kunz complied with traffic laws; no recklessness; emergency exception applies. | Immunity not waived; no reckless disregard proved. |
| Whether Kunz acted in good faith within discretionary duties | McFarland argues bad faith or misjudgment. | Kunz acted in good faith; discretionary, within scope; official immunity applies. | Kunz entitled to official immunity; City not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 884 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1994) (official immunity protects discretionary acts in good faith)
- City of San Angelo Fire Dep’t v. Hudson, 179 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (reckless disregard requires more than negligent conduct; no fact issue here)
- City of Pasadena v. Kuhn, 260 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (emergency drivers may proceed through red lights after slowing for safe operation)
- Tex. Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Sparks, 347 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (emergency-immunity analysis in DPS pursuit case)
- Smith v. Janda, 126 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (ambulance/police emergency drivers not per se reckless under 101.055(2))
- Hartman (City of San Antonio v. Hartman), 201 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. 2006) (recklessness standard for government immunity in emergencies)