Texas Supreme Court holds officer was not reckless when responding to emergency call

CITY OF HOUSTON v. MARIA CHRISTINA GOMEZ, Cause No. 23-0858 (Tex. June 20, 2025)

This is a Texas Tort Claims Act/emergency responder case involving a police vehicle collision where the Texas Supreme Court held the officer was not consciously indifferent or reckless regarding the safety of others. The City’s plea to the jurisdiction should have been granted.

While responding to an armed robbery in a police cruiser, a City of Houston police officer collided with another motorist, who sued the City for the officer’s negligence. Due to heavy rain, this incident was downgraded to a “Priority Two” call, which leaves to the officer’s discretion whether to activate his emergency lights, siren, or both. The officer never exceeded the posted speed limit of thirty-five miles per hour.  He testified that as he approached the intersection where he collided with another car, he reached down to raise the volume on his police radio.  When he looked up again, the traffic light ahead of him had turned yellow. The officer immediately applied his brakes, but his car slid into the intersection due to the wet road.  The department reprimanded the officer and noted he was “at fault.” The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeals.

While the TTCA waives immunity for operating a motor vehicle, it withdraws the waiver when the “injury arises from an officer’s response to an emergency call or reaction to an emergency situation.”  The Transportation Code provides a statutory standard for recklessness.  A motorist commits the offense of “reckless driving” when he “drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”  Tex. Transp. Code § 545.401(a).  The Court held this recklessness standard requires “conscious indifference” or “subjective awareness of an extreme risk.” Further, mere inattentiveness does not establish recklessness. The internal department determination was at most negligence, which does not waive immunity. Even establishing a failure to exercise due care does not establish a reckless disregard for the safety of others.  The officer was not driving over the speed limit, applied his brakes before entering the intersection, and was using his discretion on whether to activate lights and/or sirens.  Such does not rise to the level of conscious indifference required to establish recklessness. As a result, the City’s plea should have been granted.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Per Curiam Opinion