Texas Supreme Court holds TTCA waives immunity for negligence per se claims
City of Houston v Manning, et al. 24-0428 (Tex. May 23, 2025)
This is a Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) case where the Texas Supreme Court held the Act waives immunity for negligence per se claims.
The Houston Fire Department received a 9-1-1 dispatch call about an apartment dumpster fire, when the fire truck collided with plaintiffs’ vehicle at a red light. Plaintiffs’ light was green and the fire truck’s was red., so plaintiff sued the City. It is undisputed the fire truck had its lights and sirens on and an Opticonm transmitter, which turns oncoming traffic lights green. Plaintiff based her allegations of negligence per se on the driver’s violation of three sections of the Transportation Code. See Tex. Transp. Code §§ 545.401, 546.001, 546.005. The City filed a jurisdictional dispositive motion, which was denied and the court of appeals affirmed in part the denial. City appealed.
While the City attempted to argue the TTCA waived immunity only for negligence (not negligence per se) claims, the Court held the argument was not supported by the language of the TTCA. Specifically, the TTCA states that immunity is waived for “… or the ‘wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.021(1) (emphases added). The Court did not venture a comprehensive definition of “wrongful act or omission” to decide this case, but stated it was enough to observe that negligence per se claims will often involve such an act or omission. Further, the definition of “negligence” encompasses three degrees of negligence – gross negligence, ordinary negligence, and slight negligence. Negligence per se is merely used to define more precisely what conduct breaches the common law duty. In other words, negligence per se is generally “a species of negligence, in which the breach of duty element is established by showing the violation of a statute or regulation.” Fact questions exist regarding compliance with the listed Transportation Code provisions. As a result, the City’s dispositive motion was properly denied.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Per curiam opinion.
