1 ... T he H o no rab l e H
. P au l C an ales, p r e si d in g ju d ge o f C o un t y C o urt at L aw N o . 2 , B ex ar C o un t y, T ex as, s i gn ed t h e or de r a t i s s u e i n t h i s a pp e a l
. T h e H on or a bl e T i m J oh n s on i s t h e pr e s i di n g j u dg e of Cou nt y Co ur t of Law N o . 5 , B ex ar C o un t y, T ex as. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 09 -0 01 62 -C V CI TY OF SAN AN TON IO , Ap pe lla nts
v . Willi a m RI LEY , Appellee Fr om County

Court at L aw No. 5, B exar County , Texas Trial Court No. 325665 Honora ble Paul Canales, Judge Presiding 1 Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 15, 2009 REVERSED AND RENDERED W i l l i am R i l ey

s u edt h e C i t y

o f S an An t o n i o an d

L t
. Da v i d

E
. T u n d el fo r p ro p er t y

d am age to his vehicle ar ising out of a collision betwee n Riley ’s automobi le and the a uthorized emerg ency04
- 09
- 00 16 2- CV

2 ... T un del was di s mi s s ed f r om t he s ui t wi t hout pre j udi ce.

- 2- ve hic le dr ive n b y

Tund e l. 2 T h e C i t y

filed a ple a to the jurisdiction asser ting its g overnme ntal immunit y was not wa ived, and ther efor e, the tria l c o u r t l a c k e d s u b je ct-matter

jurisdiction. Following a hea ring , the trial cour

t denied the City ’s pl ea. The Ci ty filed t his interlocutory appea l. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 51.014(a) (8) ( Ver non 2008). We reve rse a nd rende r. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW When a plea to the jur isdiction challeng es the plea dings, w e must decide whether the plaintiff has pled fa cts that aff

irmativel y establish the trial cour t’s subject-matter

jurisdiction. See Tex as Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. A ir Contr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993)
. I n our revie w, we c onstrue the pl eading s in favor of t he plainti ff and look to the pleade r’s intent. Id. Whe n a c ity a sse rt s, wi th supporting e vidence , that the trial cour t lacks subject- matter jurisdi ction, the plaintiff must show th e r e is a d is p u te d mate r ia l f a c t r e g ar d in g th e ju

r is d ic ti o n a l is s ue. C i t

y o f Helotes v . Miller , 243 S
. W
. 3 d 7 0 4 , 7 0 7 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 2 0 0 7 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Te x . De pt. of Par k s a nd W ild lif e v. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex
. 2 0 0 4 )) . The trial c ourt may consider r eleva

nt evidence submitt ed by the parties when nece ssary to resolve the jur isdictional issues raised. Id. (c i t i n g Bland Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000)). “I f the e vidence cre ates a fac t question reg ardingthe jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot g rant the plea to the jur isdiction, and the fac t issue will be resolved by the fa ct finder .” Id. a t 707- 08
. Ho we ve r, if the e vid e nc e fa ils to r a ise
a fa c t qu e sti on

on the jur isd ic tio na l is su e , th e tr ia l c ourt ru le s o n th e ple a

to t he jur isd ic tio n a s a matter of la

w. Id. at 708.04
- 09
- 00 16 2- CV

3 ... In his re sp o nse t o t he C i t y ’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i s di ct i on, Ri l ey ar gu ed a Ci t y of San A nt oni o ordi nan ce t hat re g u la te s e m e rg e n c y ve h ic le s w a s the la w g o v e rn ing th e c u rr e n t ca se . S A N A N T O N IO , T EX ., C O D E O F O RD I N AN CES ch. 19, Ar t
. I X § 19- 338 ( 2009)
. H owe v er , i t i s cl ea r t h at t h i s or di n an ce , wh i ch h ol ds an ambu l an ce dr i v er r es pon s i bl e f or hi s ne gl i gen ce, onl y appl i es t o a p r i vat e “ amb ul anc e, ” whi ch i s d ef i ned a s a “ pri vat el y owned v ehi cl e e qui pp ed or u s ed f or t r ans po r t i ng t he wounded, i nj ur ed or s i ck. ” I d. § 19
- 1. B eca us e t hi s a cc i d en t i nv ol ved a n “ aut hor i zed emer gen cy v e h ic le ” th a t w a s o p e ra te d b y th e C ity, a n d n o t a p riv a te a m b u la n c e , t h is o rd ina n c e d o e s n o t ap p ly. See i d. “ A ut hor i zed e m e rg e n c y ve h ic le s” a re go v e rn e d b y the T e x a s T ra n sp o rta tio n C o d e . See i d. § 19- 321.

- 3- DI SCU SSIO N On a pp e a l, t he City argue s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in denyingits ple a

to t he jur isd ic tio n b e c a

us e it is i mmune from suit. We ag ree . Go ve rnme nta l im mun ity

fr om s uit de fe a ts a tr ia l c ourt ’s su

bje c t- matte r j urisdic tio n a nd is proper ly asser ted in a plea

to the jurisdiction. Tex. De p’t of Transp. v. Jones , 8 S.W .3d 636, 638-39 (T ex . 1 9 9 9 ). He re , t h e C i t y i s i m m u n e f

ro m b o t h s u i t a n d l i a b i l i t y fo r R i l ey ’s p ro p er t y

d am age unless its immunit y has been waive d. Se e Te x . D e p’ t of Tra ns p. v . G ar za , 7 0 S. W. 3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 6 ( T e x. 20 02 ). Rile y c la ims the City wa ive d it s im mun ity

un de r s e c tio n 1 01 .0 21 (1 ) o f t he Te xas T or

t Cla ims Act, which w aives immunity for pr operty damag e arising from the operation of a motor vehicle that is caused by

the wrong ful ac t, omissi on, or neg lige nce of an employ ee a cting within his scope of employ ment. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 101.021(1) ( Ver non 2005). Howeve r, the City

argues t hat t he ex ception to the waiver of sovere ign immuni ty contained in section 101.055(2) of

the Texas Tort C laims Act preve nts Ril ey ’s suit for dama g es. Section 101.055(2) pr ovides that the Ac t “does not ap p l y t o a claim ar ising . . . fr om the action of a n employ ee while respondingto an emer g ency call or rea cting to an emerg ency situation if the action is in compliance with the law s and ordinanc es applica ble to emer g ency

action . . . .” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 101. 0 5 5 (2 ). The a pplicable law s reg ardingthe oper ation of an e merg ency vehicle a re loc ated in the Te x as Tra nsportation Code. 3 See T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 546.001-.006 (Ve rnon 1999 & Supp. 2008). Specifica lly , section 546.005 provides that the driver of a n emer g ency04
- 09
- 00 16 2- CV

- 4- vehicle must drive “ with appropriate re g ard f or the saf ety of all persons,” and he is not relieve d of “the conseque nces of re ckless disreg ard f or the saf ety of others.” Id. § 5 46 .0 05 ; see Smith v. Janda , 126 S.W .3d 543, 545 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). “Interpre ting th e u ncodified prede cessor of section 546.005, the S upreme Court of Tex as held that this provision ‘impos es a du ty to dr ive wi th du e re g ard fo r o the rs by a vo idi ngne g lig e nt b e havio r, bu t it on ly imp os e s lia bil ity

for
rec kless conduct.’ ” Sm ith , 1 2 6 S
. W
. 3 d at 5 4 5 (q u o t i n g City

of A ma ril lo v . M

ar tin , 971 S.W .2d 426, 431 (Tex. 1998)). “Thus, a g overnme ntal entity is immune from sui ts to rec over da mag es re sulting fr om t he e me rg e nc y

op e ratio n o f a

n e me rg e nc y

ve hic le un le ss t

he op e ra tor a c te d re c kle ssl y ; th a t is , ‘committed an act that the ope rator kne w or should have known posed a high de g ree of risk of serious injury .’” Id. (q u o t i n g Ma rti n , 971 S.W .2d at 430). I n its plea to the j urisdiction, the C ity alleg ed that Tundel was not rec kless as a matter of law and, ther efor e, the City

reta ined its g overnme ntal immunit y . Riley , howeve r, contends the evidenc e
ra ise s a fa c t is su e a s to wh e the r T un de l a c te d w ithre c kle ss d isr e g ard fo r t he sa fe ty of oth e rs ; there fore , this fact issue must be dec ided by a jury
. The undisputed evidenc e esta blishes that Tundel was on duty with his regular EMS unit when he w as ca lled for a ssistance at a motor vehicle acc ident on northbound I H-35. Tundel was driving the emerg ency vehicle in a

n emer g ency

situation with t he lig hts and sir e ns a c tiv a te d. Tund e l e nte re d th e no rt hb ound I H- 35 on -r a mp and pr oc e e de d to c ro ss the four la

nes of tra ffic to g et to the automobile ac cident. As Tundel was a bout to enter the f

ar le ft lane, Riley ’s vehicle collided with the left side of the emer g ency

vehicle. I n respondingto the City ’s plea to the jurisdiction, Riley submitt ed the af fidavit of Thomas Du lin , a thi rd -p art

y wi tne ss t o th e a c c ide nt. I n h is a ff ida vit , D uli n s tate s: On Nov e mb e r

2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , Iw a s tr a v e li n g n o rth b o u n d o nI H 3 5 S w h e nan acc ident occur

red. The acc ident Iwitnessed occ urre d when a n ambulance enter e d the04
- 09
- 00 16 2- CV

- 5- int e rs tate fr om a

n o n r a mp a

nd a tte mpt e d to c ro ss s e ve ra l la ne s o f tr a ff

ic on no rt h bound I H35S and collided into the side of a pick-up, who I

later le arne d was drive n by a man na med Will iam Riley
. The ambulance hit the middle of the pick-up on the passeng er side. T here was nothing the driver of the pick- up, Mr. Riley , could have done to avoid this acc ident. Not o n l y d i d t h e ambulanc e drive r not cha ng e lane s safe ly , he attempted to c hang e seve ral lane s at once . There is no doubt the ambulance cause d this accide nt. Furthe rmore, this driver of the ambulance wa s not driving with due re g ard f

or the saf ety of others. I

would also say

that the ambulanc e dr ive r, in c ha

ng ingse ve ra l la

ne s o f t ra ff ic a t on c e , w a s th e c a

us e of thi s a c c ide nt. Rile y a sse rt s D uli n’ s a ff

ida vit ra ise s a mate ri a l fa c t iss ue a bo ut wh e the r T un de l a c te d w ithre c kle ss disreg ard for the safe ty of others when he crosse d sever al lanes of traff ic at once. W e d i sag ree . Ev e n if a ll o f D uli n’ s con te nti on s we re take n a s tr ue by the tr ia l c ourt , h is a ff

ida vit ra ise s, a t mo st,
on ly a qu e sti on on wh e the r Tund e l’ s a c tio ns we re ne g lig e nt; the a ff ida vit do e s n ot a sse rt

any fa c ts that rise to the leve l of rec kless disreg ard. Se e Ma rti n , 971 S.W. 2d a t 430 (r e qu ir ing a pla int if f t o show that the oper ator ha s committed an ac t that the operator knew or should ha

ve known pose d a high deg ree of risk of serious injury in or der to r ecove r damag es resulting from the em erge ncy operation of an emer g ency vehicle)
. Acc ording ly , we conclude Riley did not subm i t ev idence
s u ff i ci ent to raise a

materia l fac t issue on whether Tundel ac ted with “re ckless disreg ard f or the safe ty of others.” There fore , the City reta ins its i mmunity

as a matter of law
. CO NC LU SION We reve rse the or der of t h e t ri al court that denied the City ’s plea to the jur isdiction and rende r judg ment that the ca se be dismissed for la ck of subjec t-matter jurisdiction.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice