We refe r to appe llees collec tively as the “ Choudhary s.” 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00549- CV

Ci tyof A ust in, App e lla nt

v. Anwa r Cho udhar y, Indi vid ual ly, and a s ne xtfri e nd of A .C ., a m ino r , a nd

Talat Choud hary, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN403979 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE B Y RNE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The City of Austin bring s this i n t erloc utory appea l from the district cour t’s order denying its motion for summary judgm en t
. An wa r C houdhary , individually and as ne x t friend of Ahmed Choudhary , a minor, and Ta lat Choudhary sued the City

for damag es ar i s i n g fr om the neg lige nt operation of a motor vehicle by a g overnme ntal employ ee unde r the Te x as Tort Claims Act (the Ac t). S

e e T ex . Civ. P rac . & Re m. Code Ann. §§ 101.001-.109 (West 2005 & West S upp. 20 05 ). I n its fi rs t iss ue , the City c on te nd s that be c a us e its e mpl oy e e e njo y e d o ff ic ia l im mun ity , it 1
was entitled to sove reig n immunit y . I n its sec ond issue, the City claims that the Ac t’s limit ed wa iver of sover eig n immunit y

does not apply

to the Choudhary s’ claim bec aus e its employ ee w as respondingto an emer g ency at the time of the unde rlying a ccide nt. Be cause the City did notThere is no evidenc e in the re cord c onclusively establishing that a sec ond 911 repor t was 2 made be fore Eng ine 22 re turned to the tra iler par k on April 8. The police office rs we re re q uested to ensur e that the suspec t did not leave bef ore the 3 Depa rtment’s ar son investigator arr ived.
2 establish as a matter of law that its employ ee w as entitled t o o ff i ci al i mmunity

and that the Ac t’s
emer g ency

exceptions apply

to this case, we aff

ir m t h e district cour

t’s order denying the City ’s motion for summary

judgme nt.
BACK GR OUND On April 8, 2004, Eng ine 22 of the Austin F ire De partment re sponded to a 911 re port that a re sident of a loca l trailer park was setting small f ires to bur n the insulation off

of coppe r wire
. Acc ording to witnesses, the suspect fled the sce ne whe n he hea rd the sire ns of appr oachingfire eng ines. The f

irefig hters sec ured the scene and returne d to their station. Approxi mately six hours la te r, En g ine 22 re tur

ne d to the tr a ile r p ark

in r e sp on se to a

se c on d r e po rt

inv olv ingthe same suspect. Whil e in route, Eng ine 22 re quested that Austin police of fice rs and an a

rson investig ator 2 be dispatche d. When the firef ighte rs ar rived, the suspect exti ng uished the fire himself but did not 3 flee
. Shortly there afte r, t he Department’s arson investig ator, Captain Aa ron Woolverton, arr ived at the trailer park a nd beg an proc essing the sce ne. The firef ighte rs and the police off

icer s left the tra iler park w hile Captain Woolverton conducted his investig ation. Captain Woolverton sp o ke to the suspect momentar ily

and issued him a citation. After issuing the c itation, Captain W oolverton interview ed two witnesses. He then returne d to h is tr

u c k an d le f

t th e tr a il e r p ar

k
. Ca p ta in Wo o lv e rto n in s ta

n tl y r e a li ze d th a t he hadAnwa r Ch o u d h a r y is A .C.’s father . I n addition, Talat Choudhary , A.C.’s mother, is seeking 4 damag es for

the emotional di stress s he ex perie nced as a result of her “sensor y and conte mporane ous observa nce of the ac cident.” 3 failed to take photogr aphs of the scene
. He quickly returne d and parked his truck facing towards the int e ri or of the t rai ler park. He too k th e ne c e ssa ry ph oto g ra ph s and re tur ne d to his tr

uc k. Whil e packinghis equipment, he brief ly spoke to a “ ten or eleve n y ear old” boy who was riding his bike on the trailer

park’ s interior drivew ay . Captain Woolverton also observe d a small child, A.C., riding a “bigwhee l” towar ds the trailer park’ s exi t. Captain Woolverton finished packinghis equipment
and g ot i nto the tr

uc k to le a ve . He pu lle d f

or wa rd and tur ne d in to a re sid e nt’ s d

ri ve wa y in o rd e r t o
exec u te a thr e e - p o in t tu

r n . H e th e n r e v e r s e d o u t o f th e dr iv e w ay s o th a t th e r e ar o f h is truc k was po int e d to wa

rd s the int e ri or

of the tr a ile r p ark . F ina lly , h e be g an to dr ive fo rw ard , to wa rd s th e e xit to t he ma in tho ro ug hf

are . Af te r dr ivi ng on ly te n to fi ft e e n f e e t, h e he ard

a “ c ru nc h. ” He imm e diate ly g ot out and discovere d that he had struck A.C., on his big whe el, with his truck. Captain Woolverton pu lle d A.C . fr om be ne a th the tr uc k a nd c a lle d 9 11 . A .C. su sta ine d a br ok e n a rm and le g a s a re su lt of the a c c ide nt.

Anwar Choudhary , as next friend of A.C., file d s u i t i n district court alleg ing that A.C.’s injuries wer e the r esult of Captain Woolverton’s neg lige nt ope ration of a motor vehicle a nd that the City

was liable f

or its employ ee’ s n egl i gen ce. The City g ener ally

denied a ll of the 4 Cho ud ha ry s’ a lle g a tio ns and

a sse rt e d th e a ff

ir ma tiv e de fe ns e of so ve re ig n immun ity
. Th e City a lso filed a motion for summar y judgme nt claiming that it had conclusively established thre e indepe ndent ba se s f or so ve re ig n im mun ity . T he City argue d th a t it s so ve re ig n im mun ity is d e ri ve d f ro m Ca pta in4

Woo lve rt on ’s of

fi c ia l immun ity . T he City a lso ma int a ine d th a t it

is e nti tle d to so ve re ig n im mun ity under two of the statutory emer g ency

exceptions to the lim ited waiver of immunity

contained in the Te xas To rt

Cla ims Ac t. A ft e r a

he ari ng , th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e City ’s mot ion . T his interlocutory

appea l followed. Se e id
. § 51.014(a) (5) ( West S upp. 2005) (pr oviding f or interlocutor

y appea l from orde r that d enies motion for summary judgme nt based on a ssertion of immunity by g overnme ntal actor ).
STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW I n a summary

judgme nt case , the issue on appe al is whether t h e m ovant met the summary -judg ment burden by establishing that no ge nuine issue of materia l f act exis ts a

nd that the
mov ant i s e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a ma tte r o f l aw. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); S o uthwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Grant , 73 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002). We revie w t he trial court’s gr ant of summary jud g me nt de novo
. J

oe v . Two Thi rty

Nin e J oin t V e ntu re , 145 S.W .3d 150, 156 (Tex. 2004). When revie wing a summary

judgm en t , we t ake as true a ll evidence favor able to the nonmovant, a nd we indulge ever

y rea sonable infe rence a

nd resolve a

ny doubts in the nonmovant’s favor
. Valence Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or

se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). A def endant is en t i t l ed to s ummary judgme nt on an af

firmative de fense if the def endant c onclusively

prov es al l the eleme nts of the aff irmative def

ense. Rhone-P oulenc, Inc. v . Steel , 997 S.W. 2d 21 7, 22 3 (T e x. 19 99 ). To a c c omp lis h this, the defenda

nt-movant must present summary -judg ment evidenc e that establishes eac h element of the a ffirmati v e d ef

en s e as a matter

of law. Ryland Group, Inc . v. Hood , 924 S.W .2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996).5 DI SCU SSIO N I n two issues, the City

contends that the district c ourt err ed i n denying summar y jud g me nt b a se d o n s ov e re ig n im mun ity (1 ) d e ri vativ e of

Captai n Wo olv e rt on ’s of fi c ia l im mun ity
an d ( 2 ) p u r s u an tt o t h e s t a tu t o r y e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e A c t ’ s l i m i t e d w a i v e r o f s o v e r e i g ni m m u n i t y.
Of fi cial Im m uni ty

Offic ial immunit y

is an aff i rm at i v e d ef

en s e t h at s h i el ds g overnme ntal employees f rom persona l liability so that they are encour ag ed to vigor ously perf orm their off

icial duties. Telthorster

v . Te nn e ll , 92 S.W .3d 457, 460 -6 1 (T ex . 2 002). When a g overnme ntal employ ee is shielded by
o f f i c i a l i m m u n i t y, s o v e r e i g ni m m u n i t y s h i e l d s t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l e mp l o ye r

f r o mv i c ar i o u s l i a

b i l i t y. Un iv e rsi ty

of H ou sto n v . Clar

k , 38 S.W .3d 578, 580 (Tex. 2000). The pur pose o f the doc trine of of fi c ia l im mun ity

is to pr ote c t pu

bli c of fi c e rs fr om c ivi l li a

bil ity fo r c on du c t th a t w ou ld o the rw ise be ac tionable. Se e City

of L an c as te r v . Ch am be rs , 883 S.W .2d 650 , 6 5 3 -54 (Te x . 1994). A g overnme ntal employ ee is e n t i tled to official immunity for ( 1) the pe rfor

mance of discre tionary du tie s ( 2) that ar e wi thi n the sc op e of the e mpl oy e e ’s a

uth or ity , ( 3) pr ov ide d th a t th e e mpl oy e e a c ts in good f aith. Two T

hir ty Nin e J oin t V e ntu re , 1 45 S.W. 3d

a t 16 1; T el t h o rster , 92 S.W .3d at 461. I n th e su mma

ry -j ud g me nt c on te xt, a

de fe nd ant a sse rt ingof

fi c ia l im munity

mus t c on c lus ive ly establish all three elements. Telthorster , 92 S.W .3d at 461.

Th e City c on te nd s th a t it

is e nti tle d to so ve re ig n im mun ity be c a us e the e vid e nc e in th e r e c o r d c o n c lu s iv e ly

e s ta b li s h e s th a t C a

p ta in Wo o lv e rto nis s h ie ld e d

b y o f f ic ia l im mu

n it y . We
a g re e that th e e vid e nc e in t he re c or d d e mo ns tr a te s th a t a t th e tim e of the a c c ide nt C a

pta in6

Woo lve rt on

wa s a c tin g wi thi n th e sc op e of his a uth or ity and in g oo d faith. Ho we ve r, Ca pta in W o o l v e rt o nw a s n o tp e r f

o r m i n g a d i s c r e t i o n ar

y d u t y. A c t i o n s t h a ti n v o l v e p e r s o n a l d e l i b e r a t i o n , d e c i s i o n , an d j u d g m e n tar e d i s c r e t i o n a r y; acti o n s th a t r e qu ir e o b e d ie n c e to o r d e r s o r th e p e r f o r ma n c e o f a d u ty a s to w h ic h th e a c to r h a d no choice are minist eria l. Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc

. , 144 S.W .3d 417, 425 (Tex. 2004); City of San Angelo Fire De p’t v. Hudson , 179 S.W .3d 695, 703 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.). I n deter m i ning w hether

conduct is discre tionary , we f ocus on whe ther the public of ficial wa s perf orming a discre tionary function, not on whether he had disc retion to do an a lleg edly wrong ful act while disc harg ing that function. Se e Cha mb e rs , 883 S.W .2d at 653.

Unlike hig h speed c hases or traff ic stops, me rely operating a car in a non-eme rg ency situation doe s not involve persona l de liberation or the e x erc ise of prof essional expertise, dec ision, or judg ment. Harris County v. Gibbons , 150 S.W .3d 877, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 20 04 , n o p e t.) . D ri vin g a c ar s imp ly

re qu ir es a

pe rs on to p e rf or m in a pr e sc ri be d ma

nn e r i n obedienc e to the method of le g al authority , without reg ard to the propriety of the a ct beingdone. Id
. There fore , absent spec ial circ umstances that sug g est the off icial was pe rfor

ming a discretionar

y fu n ction, such as e ng ag ing in a high spe ed cha se, the driving of a motor ve hicle while on
non-eme rg ency business is a mi nisterial ac t. Id .; Texas Dep’ t of Pub. Safety v . Cordes , 85 S.W .3d 342, 345 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).

No eme rge n cy

exis ted at the time Captain Woolverton struck A.C. with his truck. The fir es th at wer e set e arlier in the day

had bee n exti ng uished. All fire de partment a nd police pe rs on ne l ha d lef

t the sc e ne . Ca

pta in Wool ve rt on ha d alr e a dy iss ue d a cit a tio n an d co mpl e te d h isSection 101.055 also states that sovere ign immunity is not waived if, in the abse nce of laws 5 or ordinanc es g overningemer g ency action, the a ction is not taken with consci o us indiffere nce or re c kle ss d isr e g ard

fo r the sa fe ty of oth e rs . Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C od e Ann. § 1 01 .0 55 (2 ) ( Wes t 2005). 7 investigation. Captain Woolverton was in the proc ess of lea ving the trailer pa

rk whe n the ac cident
occur red; ther e is nothin g i n the re cord that sugg ests he wa s leaving in response to a nother
emer g ency . Consequently , Captain Woolverton was per forming a ministerial ac t wh en his truck struck A.C. See Gibbons , 150 S.W .3d at 886 (drivingmotor vehicle while on non-eme rg ency business constitutes mini sterial ac t). Thus, he is not entitled to official immunity
. Telthorster , 92 S
. W
. 3 d at 4 6 1
. Be ca u s e C ap t ai nW o o l v er t o ni s n o ten t i t l edt o o ff i ci al i m m u n i t y , s o v er ei gn i m m u n i t y d o e s n o ts h i e l d t h e C i t y, a s C a

p t a i nW o o l v e rt o n ’ s e mp l o ye r , f r o m v i c ar i o u s l i a

b i l i t y. Cla rk, 38 S.W .3d at 580. We overr ule the City ’s first issue. Sovereign im m uni ty not waived

I n its second issue, the City asser ts that its s overe ign immunity was not waived. A g overnme ntal unit is immune from suit a nd liability

unless the state c onsents. Da lla s A re a R ap id T r a nsit v. W

hitley , 1 0 4 S. W. 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 ( T e x. 2 0 0 3 )
. “ I n a s u it a g a in s t a g o v e r n me n tal unit, the plaintiff must affirmativ el y demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction by alleg ing a

valid waiver

of immunit y .” Id
. The Act waives sove reig n immunit y for damag e and injury

cause d by

the wrong ful act or omission or neglig ence of an employ ee operating or using a motor vehicle within the scope of his e mpl oy

me nt. Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. § 1 01 .0 21 (1 ). Th is w a ive r d oe s n ot a pp ly wh e re the c la im a

ri se s f ro m th e a c tio n o f a

n e mpl oy e e re sp on di ngto a n e me rg e nc y

c a ll i n
c omp lia nc e wi th a pp lic a ble laws and

or din anc e s. Id . § 101.055(2). In addition, the waiver does not 58

apply to a claim ar ising fr om the actions of a n employ ee w ho either pr ovides 911 service or re sponds to a 911 emer g ency

call as long as t he employ ee’ s actions do not violate an a pplicable statute or ordinanc e. Id . § 101.062(b).

To establish that its sovereig n immunit y was not waived for the purposes of summar y judgme nt, the City

must prove that Captain Woolverton was responding to an emerg ency call and that he ac ted in compliance with the laws applica bl e t o t he situation. Id . §§ 101.055(2), .062( b). There is no alleg ation that Captain Woolverto n v i o l ated any laws or a cted with consc ious ind if fe re nc e or re c kle ss d isr e g ard

fo r t he sa fe ty of oth e rs . Ho we ve r, the re is no e vid e nc e that Ca pta in Woo lve rt on

wa s responding

to a n e me rg e nc y

c a ll at th e tim e of

the a c c ide nt. T h e City relies on Du rh am v . B owi e Cou nty for the pr oposition t hat it is irreleva nt whether an eme rg ency

exis ted at the time of the acc ident if Captain Woolverton believed that he was respondingto an emer g ency . 135 S.W .3d 294, 298 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. denied)
. I n Durham , B ow ie County e mpl oy e e s r e sp on de d to the dis c ov e ry of a fl oo d- ind uc e d c ha sm i n B ow ie C o u n t y R o ad 4 1 21 by

promptly placingwar

ning sig ns at the site. Id
. a t2 9 5
- 9 6
. T h e n e x td a y, approximately

one hour a fter t h e wa rn ing sig ns were remove d—without the County ’s knowledg e—by

some unknown third par ty , two motorists were killed whe n their ca r fe ll into t hat chasm. Id . at 296. The motorists’ fa milies subseq u en t l y s u ed Bow ie County , alleg ing w rong ful death a nd seekingsurvivorship damag es. Id
. Th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d no wa ive r of so ve re ig n im mun ity and g rante d Bow ie County ’s motion for summary judgme nt. Id
. On appeal, the fa milies arg ued that the trial court err ed in a

pply ing section 101.055’s e merg ency exception beca

use the e mploy ees w ere not responding to a

n emer g ency

at the time of the a ccide nt. Id . Our sister c ourt found that it was9

irrele vant whethe r an e merg ency exis ted at the time of the acc ident beca use the under ly ing c ause of
a c tio n s te mme d f

ro m th e c la im that B ow ie Cou nty wa s n e g lig e nt i n it s r e sp on se to t he thr e a t in iti a lly posed by t h e wa s h out. Id . at 298. “In other wor ds, we c onsider only whether Bow ie County

was respondingto an emer g ency situation . . . when it placed the signs, a s oppos ed t o wh ether an
emer g ency

situation sti ll ex isted at the time of the a ccide nt. . . .” Id
. Durham do e s not a

pp ly he re be c a

us e the Cho ud

ha ry s d o n ot a lle g e that Ca pta in Wo o l v e rt o n n e g l i g e n t l y r e s p o n d e d t o an e m e r g e n c y . T h e C h o u dh ar y s c o n t e n d t h a tCapta in Woo lve rt on str

uc k A.C . whi le ne g lig e ntl y op e ratin g his ve hic le wh ile on no n- e me rg e nc y

bu sin e ss. Captain Woolverton was not on Eng ine 22 when it re sponded to the sec ond repor t of open fir es at the tr a ile r p ark . H e did

no t pa rt ic ip ate in su pp res sin g the fi re , n or wa s it his job to d o s o. I n h is deposition, Captain Wool verton e x plai n ed , “The eng ine companie s are there for suppre ssion activities, just to put fires out, to mitigate emerg encie s. Whenever they find a – what they consider to be a c lear

violation o f l aw , then they call for an investig ator.” Captain Woolverton did not
re sp on d to an e me rg e nc y c a ll a t the tr a ile r pa rk ; he wa s dis patc he d a t the e ng ine c omp any ’s re qu e st to inv e s ti g a te w h e th e r a c it y o r d in an c e h a d b e e n v io late d
. H e ar r iv e d a f te r the fire s were exti n gu i s h ed and be g an his investigation. All of the emerg ency personne l at the trailer

park le ft shortly afte r Captain Woolverton arr ived. Captain W oolverton completed his investigation, issued
a c itatio n a nd the n lef

t the tr a ile r park . He imm e diate ly re a lize d th a t he ha d f

or g ott e n to take c e rt a in ph oto g ra ph s o f t he sc e ne a

nd re tur ne d to the tr a ile r p ark
. W hen the a c c ide nt o c c ur re d, Ca pta in Woo lve rt on wa s simp ly le a vin g the tr a ile r p ark a se c on d ti me a ft e r t a kin g his ph oto g ra ph s; the re is
no e v id e n c e in d ic a ti n g th a t h e w a s r e s p o n d in g to an o th e r e me r g e n c y a t th a t ti me . T h e r efor e, the10

emer gen cy ex ce p tions do not apply , and the City ’s sovere ign immunity is waived. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 101.021(a ), .055(2) , .062(b). We over rule the City ’s sec ond issue.
CO NC LU SION Becaus e the City

did no t e sta bli sha s a ma tte r o f l aw that Ca

pta in Wo olv e rt on

is entitled to official immunity or that the Ac t’s emer g ency exceptions apply

to this ca se, we hold that the City is not shielded by

sovere ign immunity

and af firm the dis trict court’s or der de ny ing summar y jud g me nt.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 16, 2006