The City of Austin v. Noel Powell, 704 S.W.3d 437

A high-speed police chase in Austin led to Officer Bullock's patrol car striking Noel Powell's stopped minivan, injuring Powell, who was not at fault.
Powell sued the City of Austin for damages arising from the collision.
The City asserted governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act's “emergency exception,” arguing Bullock was responding to an emergency and not acting recklessly.
The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed, finding a fact issue as to recklessness.
The Supreme Court of Texas granted review to determine (1) which laws or ordinances, if any, govern officer conduct in emergency responses and (2) whether facts raised a triable issue on recklessness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether general traffic laws apply to emergency police actions as "laws and ordinances applicable to emergency action" under the Tort Claims Act	§ 545.062(a) (following distance) applies and was violated	Only laws specifically addressing emergency actions apply	General rules of the road do not apply to emergency action for immunity analysis
Whether specific provisions in Chapter 546 or APD policy limit officer conduct during emergencies	Only four specific departures allowed (per expressio unius); policy violations matter	§ 546.001 lists non-exclusive, illustrative safe harbors; policy not law/ordinance	The chapter provides safe harbors, not exclusive limitations; policy violations don’t trigger waiver
Whether there was evidence Officer Bullock acted with “reckless disregard”	Failure to control speed, follow at safe distance, inattentiveness, and severity of injury show recklessness	No evidence of recklessness; actions consistent with emergency response, risk assessment, and supervision	No fact issue as to recklessness; conduct (at worst negligent) did not meet legal threshold
Whether evidence of combined negligent acts can support a finding of recklessness	Multiple negligent acts together show recklessness	No – even combined negligent acts, without more, do not meet the recklessness standard	Combined negligence insufficient; no triable issue of recklessness created

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (establishes burden and framework for resolving pleas to the jurisdiction and governmental immunity)
City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. 2022) (elaborates emergency exception and recklessness analysis under Tort Claims Act)
Black v. Nueces County Rural Fire Prevention Dist. No. 2, 695 S.W.2d 562 (Tex. 1985) (laws and ordinances applicable to emergency actions must specifically address emergencies)
City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. 2006) (discusses standard for conscious indifference/reckless disregard in immunity context)