City of Houston v. Catrennia Foreman Sauls, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Dwayne Foreman, And Tristena Christian, as Next Friend of D.F., a Minor, 654 S.W.3d 772

On Oct. 8, 2019, HPD Officers Hewitt and Curtis were dispatched to a “priority two” suicide-in-progress call; the call was held by dispatch for ~10 minutes while the officers were at the station. Hewitt left the station in a marked patrol car without activating lights or siren.
While driving south on North Wayside (speed ~55–62 mph in a 40 mph zone) at night, Hewitt’s view was partially obstructed by the cruiser’s A-pillar and roadside trees; he struck and killed bicyclist Dwayne Foreman.
Appellees sued the City for negligence based on Hewitt’s actions. The City moved for traditional summary judgment asserting governmental immunity preserved by (1) official immunity for Hewitt and (2) the TTCA emergency-response exception.
Summary-judgment evidence included Hewitt’s affidavit and HPD dispatch logs and deposition excerpts from Officer Sartor; Appellees submitted an expert declaration and dispatch logs to controvert the City’s proofs.
The trial court denied the City’s motion; the City brought an interlocutory appeal. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the City failed to conclusively prove good faith (official immunity) and that a fact issue existed whether Hewitt was responding to an emergency (TTCA exception).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hewitt is protected by official immunity (good-faith discretionary act)	Appellees: evidence (expert, logs) shows Hewitt acted ministerially or without assessing alternatives/risks, so no official immunity	City: Hewitt acted within scope, made discretionary judgments responding to a suicide call and considered need/risk factors (traffic, weather, speed)	Court: City failed to conclusively show Hewitt considered alternative courses and sufficiently weighed risks; official-immunity not established, summary-judgment denied
Whether TTCA emergency-response exception preserves immunity	Appellees: dispatch logs and facts raise a dispute whether this was an emergency or whether Hewitt complied with emergency-response norms	City: the call was a priority-two emergency; Hewitt complied with applicable standards and did not act with reckless disregard	Court: factual disputes exist (dispatch delay, conflicting log content, whether call was treated as an emergency), so exception does not conclusively preserve immunity; summary-judgment denied

Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Bonilla, 481 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2015) (official-immunity proof must address need/risk factors; "magic words" unnecessary but alternatives must be considered)
City of San Antonio v. Riojas, 640 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2022) (good-faith test is objective; protects all but plainly incompetent or knowingly unlawful acts)
Telthorster v. Tennell, 92 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. 2002) (movant must show a reasonable officer could have believed the actions justified under facts known)
Wadewitz v. Montgomery, 951 S.W.2d 464 (Tex. 1997) (need/risk balancing framework for emergency responses)
Univ. of Houston v. Clark, 38 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2000) (assessment of time, traffic, weather may suffice to show consideration of collision risks)
City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. 2006) (TTCA emergency-response exception requires plaintiff to raise fact issue once defendant invokes it)