X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Responding to a radio call for an officer in need of assistance, Harris County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Angela Moore used her siren and emergency lights to navigate traffic. She proceeded through an intersection at a speed of 65 m.p.h., and when she saw that traffic ahead was moving very slowly, she tried to get around it by passing in a left-turn lane. Another vehicle moved into the lane and the same time, and Moore swerved to avoid hitting it. She lost control of the car, which skidded into oncoming traffic, and crashed into a car driven by John and Bobbie Smyly. John later died from his injuries. Bobbie Smyly filed a negligence and gross negligence suit against Moore and Harris County. The trial court denied both defendants’ pleas to the jurisdiction, which were based on immunity. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first considers whether Moore is entitled to official immunity. The parties agree that Moore was performing a discretionary duty within the scope of her authority, but they disagree on whether that duty was performed in good faith. To prove good faith, Moore was required to conclusively establish that a reasonably prudent officer in the same or similar situation could have believed the need to which the officer is responding outweighs the risks associated with the officer’s actions. The “need” element includes the seriousness of the situation and whether an officer’s presence is necessary to prevent injury or loss of life, or to apprehend a suspect, or whether there are alternative courses available. The four principal disputed facts are: 1. Moore’s speed; 2. the amount of traffic; 3. the movement of traffic to the right; and 4. the existence of an open spot to the right of the vehicle that moved in front of Moore. Moore testified to each of these facts, but each was contradicted in some way by witnesses. Consequently, Moore did not conclusively establish good faith. As for the county’s plea to the jurisdiction, based on sovereign immunity, the court points out that the Tort Claims Act waives governmental immunity from suit for injuries arising out of an employee’s use of a motor-driven vehicle if the employee would otherwise be personally liable to the claimant. Based on its previous finding that Moore would not be entitled to official immunity, the court finds immunity waived as to the county. OPINION:Seymore, J.; Hedges, C.J., Anderson and Seymore, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.