Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: The appellant, Terry Joe Adams Jr., challenges the summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the appellee, Cliff Downey. As coordinator for the Alvin Community College Police Academy, Downey was responsible for administering and conducting the daily operations of the academy. Downey’s duties included planning and administering training scenarios for the police cadets attending the academy. These training scenarios are known in law-enforcement vernacular as “close training exercises.” The close training exercises simulate real-life situations that a police officer may experience in the field. The close training exercises often provide a cadet with the only practical experience that he may receive before being sent into the field as a police officer. On April 10, 1999, Adams, who was a cadet at the academy, participated in various close training exercises. While participating in these exercises, the cadets carried handguns loaded with blank rounds. Downey had decided to put blank rounds in the cadets’ handguns to add an element of realism to the training exercises. Downey selected Jesse Harris, an academy graduate and licensed peace officer, to oversee the cadets during the scenarios that day. At the end of the last training exercise, Adams was in the process of handcuffing a “suspect” when Harris criticized Adams for standing in such a way that would allow the suspect to grab Adams’s handgun from his holster. Harris proceeded to demonstrate how easily the suspect could have grabbed the firearm from Adams. During the demonstration, and while Harris had Adams’s handgun, the handgun discharged, shooting Adams in the face. HOLDING: Reversed and remanded. To establish good faith as a matter of law, Downey is required to show that a reasonably prudent coordinator, under the same or similar circumstances, could have believed that loading the cadets’ handguns with blanks, failing to require the cadets to wear protective eyewear, and selecting Harris to oversee the cadets was justified based on the information he possessed. Telthorster v. Tennell, 92 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. 2002). Downey is not required to show that the only reasonable manner to plan and administer the close training exercises is the manner that he did, or that all reasonably prudent coordinators would have acted as he did. Rather, he must prove only that a reasonably prudent coordinator, under similar circumstances, might have decided to plan and administer the close training exercises as he did. Even if Downey acted negligently, good faith is not defeated. The test is not “what a reasonable person would have done,” but “what a reasonable [coordinator] could have believed.” In conducting the review, the court must measure good faith in official immunity cases against a standard of objective reasonableness, without regard to the official’s subjective state of mind. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1994). Only if Downey meets his burden of proof on good faith does the burden shift to Adams to produce controverting evidence that is, Adams then must show that no reasonable person in Downey’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified Downey’s conduct. In this case, contradictory evidence related to the material facts underlying Downey’s claim of good faith exists in the record. The parties dispute the material facts related to 1. Downey’s assignment of Harris to oversee the close training exercises; 2. Downey’s decision to load the cadet’s handguns with blanks; and 3. Downey’s failure to require the cadets to wear protective eyewear during the training exercises. This court, and other Texas courts, have held that a movant on summary judgment fails to conclusively establish good faith when the material facts relied on to support good faith are in dispute. See Roberts v. Foose, 7 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Because of the existence of contradictory proof on the material facts and Downey’s failure to address the facts in the light most favorable to Adams, the court holds that Downey failed to meet his summary judgment burden to conclusively establish his good faith. Because the court holds that Downey failed to conclusively prove he acted in good faith in planning and administering the close training exercises, the court also holds that Downey failed to prove the defense of official immunity as a matter of law. OPINION: Higley, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.