emergency response exception in Texas

2019Code § 546.005(2); see also City of Amarillo v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. 1998).1 Accordingly, the emergency response exception applies unless Gomez presented some evidence that Officer Simmons was not responding to an emergency or that his actions showed conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.

2018“To recover damages resulting from the emergency operation of an emergency vehicle, a plaintiff must show that the operator has committed an act that the operator knew or should have known posed a high degree of risk of serious injury.” City of Amarillo v. Martin, 971 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. 1998).1 The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the emergency response exception does not apply.

2024Quested v. City of Houston, 440 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

2024Quested v. City of Houston, 440 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

2024See Rivera v. City of Houston, No. 01-19-00629-CV, 2022 WL 2163025 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 16, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (city did not establish right to summary judgment on emergency exception when officer entered the intersection having failed to determine whether she had a red light); see also Gomez, 587 S.W.3d at 903 (fact issue as to emergency exception when officer did not slow his speed below the posted speed limit to compensate for the wet conditions, did not use his patrol car’s emergency lights and siren, and did not maintain visual contact with the road as he app

2022Code Ann. § 101.055 (2); see also Gomez, 587 S.W.3d at 902.

2024Safety v. Sparks, 347 S.W.3d 834 , 841–42 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2011, no pet.) (holding that the emergency response exception applied where the officer was responding to an emergency call with his lights and siren activated, he “slowed or stopped as he reached the intersection,” and entered intersection “cautiously”); City of Pasadena v. Kuhn, 260 S.W.3d 93 , 99–100 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (same where the officer was responding to emergency, had activated his emergency lights and siren, and slowed down before proceeding through intersection); Hudson, 179 S.W.

2022Martin, 971 S.W.2d at 429-30 ; City of San Angelo Fire Dep’t v. Hudson, 179 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.).

2025So, when the emergency-response exception is in play, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of negating [the emergency-response exception’s] applicability.” Maspero, 640 S.W.3d at 529; see City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667, 672 (Tex. 2006).

2022Maspero, 640 S.W.3d at 529 (citing Hartman, 201 S.W.3d at 672 ).

2025So, when the emergency-response exception is in play, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of negating [the emergency-response exception’s] applicability.” Maspero, 640 S.W.3d at 529; see City of San Antonio v. Hartman, 201 S.W.3d 667, 672 (Tex. 2006).

2022Maspero, 640 S.W.3d at 529 (citing Hartman, 201 S.W.3d at 672 ).

2025However, “[w]hether the plaintiff bears an evidentiary burden [at the plea to the jurisdiction stage] depends on how the government responds to the purported 6 waiver” in “pos[ing] its jurisdictional challenge.” Powell, 704 S.W.3d at 447.

2024See Rivera v. City of Houston, No. 01-19-00629-CV, 2022 WL 2163025 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 16, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (city did not establish right to summary judgment on emergency exception when officer entered the intersection having failed to determine whether she had a red light); see also Gomez, 587 S.W.3d at 903 (fact issue as to emergency exception when officer did not slow his speed below the posted speed limit to compensate for the wet conditions, did not use his patrol car’s emergency lights and siren, and did not maintain visual contact with the road as he app

2023See Santibanes v. City of Tomball, 654 F. Supp. 2d 593, 616 (S.D.

2021See Save Our Springs All. v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674, 686 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (“[I]f a party has repleaded in an attempt to cure disputed jurisdictional issues and if a court can ascertain the nature and issues of the controversy and the evidence that probably would be relevant, that party is not entitled to an opportunity to replead.”). 1.