672 S.W.3d 27
Tex.2023Background
- Houston police Officer Samuel Omesa was responding to a priority-two emergency call about an armed suspect when the collision occurred.
- Omesa testified he activated overhead emergency lights, intermittently used his siren, averaged 35–40 mph, and slowed or stopped at intersections before proceeding through Richmond Avenue on a red light.
- Crystal Green and passenger Michelle Cummings testified Omesa was traveling “very fast,” did not have his siren on, and failed to stop; Green’s car allegedly had no headlights and appeared suddenly from a blocked lane.
- Green sued the City for vicarious liability for Omesa’s negligence and for negligent hiring/training/supervision; the trial court denied the City’s summary-judgment motion and the court of appeals affirmed that denial.
- The Supreme Court granted review and evaluated whether the record contains evidence that Omesa drove with "reckless disregard for the safety of others," which would defeat the Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tort Claims Act waive s immunity for collision while officer responding to emergency | Green: evidence shows Omesa acted with reckless disregard (failed to stop, siren off, high speed), so waiver applies | City: officer was responding to an emergency and did not act with reckless disregard; emergency exception bars waiver | Emergency exception applies; no waiver — claims dismissed |
| Whether record shows "reckless disregard" under Texas law | Green: testimony and expert support inference of willful/wanton conduct and subjective awareness of extreme risk | City: evidence shows slowing/stopping, lights on, obstructed view, and no proof of subjective awareness of extreme risk | No evidence of willful or conscious indifference; momentary lapse/ordinary negligence only |
| Whether failing to use siren and proceeding on red light alone establishes recklessness | Green: failure to activate siren and running red supports recklessness inference | City: Code permits running red after slowing; siren use discretionary under policy; those facts alone do not show extreme-risk awareness | Failure to use siren and possible incomplete stop may show negligence but not reckless disregard |
| Whether triable fact issue exists precluding summary judgment | Green: disputed facts (speed, siren, stop) create fact issue | City: undisputed emergency response and other facts negate reckless-disregard showing | No triable fact on reckless-disregard; summary judgment dismissing claims rendered by Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. 2022) (defines "reckless disregard" as willful/wanton conduct with subjective awareness of extreme risk)
- Tarrant County v. Bonner, 574 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. 2019) (discusses conscious indifference standard)
- Perez v. Webb County, 511 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015) (act known or should have been known to pose high degree of risk)
- Quested v. City of Houston, 440 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (prior articulation of reckless-disregard inquiry)
- City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. 2006) (cited for recklessness language)