Court Opinion

ID: 9396369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 07:09:35.206957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.420630
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-22-00325-CV
     ___________________________

    CITY OF ARLINGTON, Appellant

                     V.

       CRAIG TAYLOR, Appellee

  On Appeal from the 96th District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
     Trial Court No. 096-329704-21

   Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellee Craig Taylor sued Appellant City of Arlington (City) after Taylor was

involved in a car accident with a City police officer who was responding to an

emergency. The City appeals the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction,

contending that it was entitled to immunity under the emergency exception to the

Texas Tort Claims Act’s (TTCA) waiver of municipal immunity. We will affirm.

                                 I. BACKGROUND

                             A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

      Benajah Baskin, a City police officer, responded to an emergency call to assist

another officer with an occupied stolen vehicle. Baskin testified that “[b]ased on [his]

training and experience, a police officer alone with an occupied stolen vehicle is a

dangerous situation” and “[t]he police officer could be in danger if he or she initiates

an arrest and the person in the vehicle resists arrest.” Baskin testified that he turned

on his emergency lights and sirens and began driving to the location of the stolen

vehicle. His lights and sirens remained on throughout the incident.

      Traveling north on Lincoln Drive, Baskin approached the intersection with

Green Oaks Boulevard. Taylor was traveling east on Green Oaks Boulevard in his

vehicle. Taylor testified that he was traveling at or just below the speed limit and did

      1
       All facts are derived from the parties’ plea-to-the-jurisdiction evidence.

                                           2
not see Baskin’s vehicle. At the intersection, Baskin had a red light and Taylor had a

green light.

       Baskin testified that he slowed down and scanned the intersection to confirm

that it was clear before proceeding. According to Baskin, other vehicles at the

intersection were stopping or had already stopped, and he also came to a “momentary

stop” before proceeding into the intersection. Almost immediately after entering the

intersection, Baskin’s vehicle was struck by Taylor’s. Baskin testified that he did not

see Taylor’s vehicle until it was too late.

       Taylor testified that, as he approached the intersection, he did not see Baskin’s

vehicle or emergency lights and did not hear any sirens. There are three traffic lanes

on that stretch of Green Oaks Boulevard, and Taylor said that he was traveling in the

lane farthest from Baskin and that a truck was driving next to him in the middle lane.

Taylor surmised that this truck—which stopped before the intersection—may have

obstructed him from seeing Baskin’s vehicle. Taylor said that he applied his brakes

immediately before the collision.

       Gregg Dragun, who witnessed the accident, testified that he was stopped at the

intersection heading in the same direction as Baskin on Lincoln Drive. Dragun

recalled that conditions were clear and that, although he could see the entire

intersection without obstruction, he never saw Taylor’s vehicle until the collision

occurred. As Dragun waited at the red light, Baskin came up from behind him, “came

to a complete stop, and then . . . ventured forward” into the intersection. He

                                              3
confirmed that other vehicles heading in the same direction as Taylor on Green Oaks

Boulevard had stopped even though they had a green light. In Dragun’s estimation,

Taylor “should have stopped” given that other vehicles traveling eastbound on Green

Oaks had stopped and because Taylor should have seen Baskin’s lights or heard his

sirens.

          Officer Jessica Ramirez, who investigated the accident, testified that Baskin had

not come to a complete stop before entering the intersection. She also noted in her

crash report that “[Baskin] may have operated the vehicle without due care.” When

deposed about what she meant by this, Ramirez agreed that she had concluded that

Baskin may have acted without due care because “he [ha]dn’t check[ed] to make sure

all three lanes were clear before he entered” the intersection.           This issue was

expounded upon further in her deposition:

          Q. Okay. And if you don’t see any traffic in Lane No. 3, the inside lane
          that Mr. Taylor was in because there’s vehicles in Lane 2 that could be
          blocking your view, that creates a blind spot. [I]n that situation should
          [Baskin] have waited another second or two to make sure that traffic was
          clear before he just entered into it blindly?

          A. He could have.

          Q. And if he would have, he would have noticed another vehicle coming
          across and he would have waited for it to pass, right?

          ...

          A. Possibly.

          Q. . . . Possibly. And then possibly this accident - - this accident could
          have been avoided had he done so, correct?

                                              4
       ...

       A. Possibly.

       Sergeant John Brown attested that the Arlington Police Department Crash

Review Board (Board) investigated the crash and determined that it was a “non-

chargeable offense.”2 Brown opined that Baskin had “acted consistently with the

rules and regulations applicable to responding to an emergency call.” He also testified

that dashcam video showed that Baskin slowed down but did not completely stop at

the intersection.3

                           B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       Taylor sued the City for negligence, and the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction.

In its plea, the City argued that it had immunity under the emergency exception to the

TTCA’s waiver of immunity. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.055(2). In

response, Taylor argued that Baskin had driven recklessly and that all of the City’s plea

witnesses were interested witnesses because they were employed by the City. Taylor

contended that, as interested witnesses, their testimony was incapable of supporting

       2
        Brown, who serves as chair of the Board, explained that the Board investigates
all crashes involving Arlington police vehicles. According to Brown, when the Board
determines that a crash is a non-chargeable offense, the case is referred back to the
police officer’s “chain-of-command for further review and determination of whether
any discipline not directly related to the crash is warranted.”

       A dashcam video from Baskin’s vehicle shows that he had reduced his speed
       3

when he entered the intersection but never came to a complete stop. Ramirez noted
in her crash report that the video recorded Baskin’s speed at nine miles per hour at
the time he slowed down.

                                            5
the City’s plea because it raised fact issues concerning whether Baskin had (1) come to

a complete stop and (2) confirmed that all lanes of traffic were clear before

proceeding into the intersection. The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction

and the City filed this interlocutory appeal.

                           II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

       The question of governmental immunity is jurisdictional, and we review a plea

to the jurisdiction de novo. City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523, 528 (Tex.

2022). “The party suing the governmental unit bears the burden of affirmatively

showing waiver of immunity.” Id. “To determine whether the party has met this

burden, we may consider the facts alleged by the plaintiff and the evidence submitted

by the parties.” Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. McKenzie, 578 S.W.3d 506,

512 (Tex. 2019). When, as here, jurisdictional facts are challenged, our review mirrors

that of a traditional summary judgment motion, and the burden is on the government

to meet the summary-judgment standard of proof. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v.

Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004); Pakdimounivong v. City of Arlington,

219 S.W.3d 401, 408 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).

       Thus, in evaluating the plea-to-the-jurisdiction evidence, we take as true all

evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable inference and

resolve any doubts in their favor. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. If the pleadings and

evidence create a fact question as to jurisdiction, dismissal is improper. Maspero,

                                            6
640 S.W.3d at 529. “However, if the evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact

question, the plea must be granted.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

                                 III. DISCUSSION

      In a single issue, the City argues that its plea to the jurisdiction should have

been granted because the emergency exception to the TTCA’s immunity waiver

applied to bar Taylor’s claim. We hold that the City did not bear its initial summary-

judgment burden of conclusively proving its entitlement to that exception.

                         A. THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION

      Governments are immune from suit unless waived by state law. Id. at 528.

The TTCA waives immunity for the negligent acts of government employees in

specific situations. Id. But there are a number of exceptions, including one for

emergency situations, which provides that the TTCA waiver provisions do not apply

to claims

      arising . . . from the action of an employee while responding to an
      emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation if the action is in
      compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable to emergency action,
      or in the absence of such a law or ordinance, if the action is not taken
      with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of
      others[.]

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.055(2).

      To properly assert its entitlement to this exception in a summary-judgment

context, the government bears the initial burden of conclusively proving as a matter

of law that its employee (1) was responding to an emergency call and (2) acted in

                                           7
compliance with the laws applicable to the emergency situation or, if none apply,

acted without conscious indifference or reckless disregard. Id.; see Durham v. Bowie

County, 135 S.W.3d 294, 298 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. denied) (“To establish

this [emergency exception] affirmative defense for purposes of summary judgment,

Bowie County must prove, as a matter of law, all of the essential elements of the

defense, leaving no issues of material fact.”). It is only after the government makes

this initial showing that the burden shifts to the plaintiff to plead and prove that the

emergency exception does not apply. City of San Antonio v. Smith, 562 S.W.3d 75, 83

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, pet. denied) (citing City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201

S.W.3d 667, 672 (Tex. 2006)).

                B. THE CITY DID NOT BEAR ITS INITIAL BURDEN

      For the emergency exception to apply here, the City bore the initial summary-

judgment burden of conclusively proving that Baskin (1) was responding to an

emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation and (2) complied with the laws

applicable to emergency action, if any such laws existed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. § 101.055(2). The City asserts, and we agree, that the law applicable to the

emergency action taken by Baskin is found in Section 546.001 of the Texas

Transportation Code.     See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 546.001(2).         This Section

provides that the operator of an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call

may “proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe

operation.” Id. §§ 546.001(2) (emphasis added), 546.002.

                                           8
      Assuming without deciding that Baskin was responding to an emergency call,

we must determine whether the City conclusively proved that he proceeded into the

intersection and past the red light after slowing as necessary for safe operation.

      It is undisputed that Taylor was traveling in the third and farthest lane from

Baskin’s perspective as Baskin approached the intersection and that at least one

vehicle had stopped in the middle lane next to Taylor, which obstructed Baskin’s view

of the traffic traveling in Taylor’s lane. Though Baskin testified that he came to a

complete stop and scanned the intersection to ensure that it was clear before

proceeding, other evidence conflicted with his account:

   • Baskin’s dashcam video and Ramirez’s testimony showed that Baskin did not
come to a complete stop but that he slowed to approximately nine miles per hour
before proceeding through the intersection;

   • Both Baskin and Taylor testified that they did not see each other, and Taylor
surmised that this was due to the vehicle stopped in the middle lane;

   • Ramirez noted that Baskin “may have operated the vehicle without due care”
by failing to verify that all three lanes were clear before he entered the intersection;
and

   • Ramirez agreed that Baskin could have waited “another second or two” to
make sure that traffic was clear and that, had he done so, the accident may not have
occurred.

      Viewing these particular facts in the light most favorable to Taylor and

indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in his favor, we hold

that the City failed to conclusively prove that Baskin slowed as necessary to safely

enter the intersection against a red light. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228.

                                            9
          The City contends that, because Taylor did not argue in his plea-to-the-

jurisdiction response that Baskin had failed to comply with laws applicable to

emergency action but argued only that Baskin had acted with conscious indifference

or reckless disregard, he has essentially forfeited the issue. However, the City was

saddled with the initial burden of conclusively proving that Baskin had complied with

applicable laws. See Smith, 562 S.W.3d at 83. Because the City did not do so, the

burden never shifted to Taylor to prove otherwise. We overrule this argument.4

See id.

                                   IV. CONCLUSION

          For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                         /s/ Brian Walker

                                                         Brian Walker
                                                         Justice

Delivered: May 18, 2023

        The City also argues that whether Baskin stopped or merely slowed down
          4

before entering the intersection is irrelevant because established precedent states that
a police officer need only slow down to prove a lack of indifference or recklessness.
See Maspero, 640 S.W.3d at 523. But we do not reach this argument. Under the
TTCA’s emergency exception, we move to the question of whether Baskin acted
recklessly or with conscious indifference only “in the absence of [an applicable
emergency] law or ordinance.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.055(2). As
we have already explained, Section 546.001(2) of the transportation code applied here
and, having failed to conclusively prove that Baskin’s actions complied with that
Section, we need not determine whether he also acted with indifference or recklessly.
See id. at 529–30 (analyzing whether a police officer violated “laws and ordinances
applicable to emergency action” independently of whether the officer also acted
recklessly).

                                              10