787 F.Supp.3d 799
W.D. Tex.2025Background
- This case arises from the death of Texas DPS Special Agent Anthony Salas, who was fatally injured when a government-operated vehicle (GOV) driven by Border Patrol Agent Martinez rolled into a canal during a joint operation near the Maverick County Hydro Electric Power Plant in January 2022.
- At the time of the incident, Salas and six undocumented individuals were riding unrestrained in the bed of the GOV, despite available, safer transport options.
- Plaintiffs (Salas’s estate and family) sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence in (1) the operation of the GOV and (2) the transportation of detainees in violation of federal policy.
- The United States moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity under the FTCA’s Discretionary Function Exception (DFE), and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on several of the government’s affirmative defenses.
- The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss (finding the DFE inapplicable), allowed plaintiffs to pursue both wrongful death and personal injury damages up to $15M, but denied summary judgment on the defense of unavoidable accident (finding fact issues on negligence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FTCA’s Discretionary Function Exception bar claims for negligent driving and detainee transport? | Actions were not grounded in policy; agent violated clear federal directives requiring seatbelts/restraints. | Agents’ actions were discretionary and related to law enforcement policy. | DFE does not apply; claims proceed. |
| Did Lizzett Salas’s SF-95 preserve all damages claims (personal injury and wrongful death)? | Notice and sum certain for total damages were properly provided in the administrative claim. | SF-95 left ‘personal injury’ box blank, waiving such damages. | Administrative claim sufficient; all damages up to $15M preserved. |
| Did plaintiffs adequately exhaust administrative remedies for the two negligence claims? | All jurisdictional pre-requisites for remaining claims were met. | Failure to exhaust regarding personal injury claims. | Exhaustion found for remaining claims; summary judgment granted. |
| Is summary judgment warranted on the government’s 'unavoidable accident' defense? | No evidence of unavoidable accident; government agent negligent. | Factual disputes about visibility and knowledge of canal; report supports defense. | Fact issues remain; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court clarified two-part test for the FTCA’s discretionary function exception)
- Berkovitz ex rel. Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (Set limits on applicability of discretionary function exception when federal policies are specific)
- United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797 (Explained policy grounding necessary for DFE immunity)
- Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284 (Notice and value requirements for FTCA administrative claims)
- Dallas v. Tex. Elec. Co-op., 157 S.W.3d 429 (Texas definition and requirements for unavoidable accident defense)