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, 690 S.W.3d 60

Officer Hewitt, a Houston police officer, responded to a "priority two" suicide call classified as an emergency involving potential threat to human life.
While responding without lights or sirens, per department policy to avoid agitating suicidal subjects, Hewitt drove above the speed limit and struck a bicyclist, Dwayne Foreman, who was crossing in an area with limited visibility.
Foreman’s heirs sued the City of Houston for wrongful death, alleging negligence by Hewitt in operating the police vehicle.
City of Houston asserted governmental immunity, arguing Hewitt was entitled to official immunity as he was performing discretionary duties in good faith within his authority.
The trial court denied summary judgment for the City; the court of appeals found a fact issue on Hewitt’s good faith, precluding summary judgment. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, granting summary judgment for the City and dismissing the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Hewitt performing a discretionary duty?	Officer wasn’t responding to an actual emergency based on 911 call contents.	Responding to a priority two suicide call is discretionary by policy and circumstances.	Hewitt was performing a discretionary duty.
Did Hewitt act in good faith?	No reasonable officer would have responded as Hewitt did, given risks and alleged lack of urgency.	A reasonable officer could believe actions were justified; risks and alternatives were assessed.	City’s evidence established good faith; no sufficient controverting evidence.
Did plaintiff raise a fact issue on good faith?	Plaintiffs’ expert showed alternatives and questioned the risks taken.	Plaintiff’s evidence was conclusory and relied on hindsight or information not available to Hewitt.	Plaintiff did not raise a fact issue.
Does the City retain immunity?	Immunity is waived if employee liable for negligence.	Immunity not waived because employee (Hewitt) was entitled to official immunity.	Immunity not waived; City entitled to summary judgment.

City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1994) (establishing official immunity test: discretionary duties, within scope of authority, and good faith)
Wadewitz v. Montgomery, 951 S.W.2d 464 (Tex. 1997) (articulating need–risk balancing for good faith in emergency response situations)
Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2004) (clarifying objective nature of good faith; insulating government function from hindsight litigation)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Bonilla, 481 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2015) (clarifying standards for summary judgment and burden in official immunity cases)