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:On October 17, 1998, the city of San Antonio received a rainstorm that exceeded 100-year flood levels. The city issued a disaster declaration and requested state assistance. Responding to widespread flooding, local and state officials placed barricades and flares on roads and highways throughout the city. One of the flooded roads was Rigsby Avenue near its crossing with Salado Creek. This incident occurred about midnight, as four members of the Hartmans’ extended family were returning from an out-of-town wedding reception. According to eyewitnesses, the car drove straight into the flooded portion of Rigsby without slowing, and was swept away in the current. All four occupants drowned. The Hartmans filed suit against the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The city responded with a plea to the jurisdiction asserting immunity. The trial court denied the plea, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Tort Claims Act waives immunity from liability and suit in a number of circumstances. But the act includes a subchapter entitled “Exceptions and Exclusions” listing circumstances in which its waiver provisions do not apply. Among those is �101.055(2), which governs emergency situations. The court of appeals held that “emergency” exception to the Tort Claims Act did not apply and pointed to cases applying �101.055(2) to traffic accidents. HOLDING:The Texas Supreme Court reversed the San Antonio Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the judgment and rendered judgment for the city of San Antonio. The court declined to limit �101.055(2) to police and traffic accidents. The statute, the court held, exempts governments reacting to an emergency situation, “which necessarily includes prioritizing some risks over others. Under the statute, evidence that the City had time to do more at Rigsby Avenue is not evidence that the City was no longer reacting to an emergency situation.” Resolving all fact issues in the Hartmans’ favor, the court found no fact question regarding whether the city was reacting to an emergency situation and held an emergency situation existed as a matter of law. OPINION:Brister, J., delivered the opinion of the court. Green, J., did not participate.

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.