Opinion ID: 2430934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Culpability of the Municipal Agent.

Text: The first prong essentially asks whether the municipal agent acted with a culpable state of mind which resulted in injury. Thus, the plaintiff must first show that the actor engaged in willful, wanton, malicious or grossly negligent conduct. The usual test for gross negligence is the one set out by this court in Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, 616 S.W.2d 911, 920 (Tex. 1981). To be entitled to exemplary damages a plaintiff must show: That entire want of care which would raise the belief that the act or omission complained of was the result of conscious indifference to the right or welfare of the person or persons to be affected by it ... In other words, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew about the peril, but his acts or omissions demonstrated that he didn't care. Burk Royalty at 920. The court of appeals in the present case cited Burk Royalty for the proposition that gross negligence may result from a series of negligent acts or omissions and many circumstances and elements may make up indifference amounting to gross negligence. 708 S.W.2d at 527; Burk Royalty, 616 S.W.2d at 920. In the context of exemplary damages against a municipality, however, we agree with the reasoning used by the Fifth Circuit in Peace v. City of Center, 372 F.2d 649 (5th Cir.1967). There, the court held that liability will result only if it is pleaded and proved that the acts giving rise to the claim were committed with such malice or evil intent, or such gross negligence as to be equivalent to such intent. Peace at 650. Thus, in order to recover the plaintiff must show at least that amount of conscious indifference which would tend to show malice or evil intent on the part of the actor.