Texas Supreme Court Rules on Police Immunity in Car Crash Case
The Texas Supreme Court has made a significant ruling in a case involving a police officer who crashed into a civilian’s car while responding to a 911 call. The court’s decision sets a higher standard for victims to prove that police officers are liable in such cases.
Background of the Case
Aamir Terry, a Killeen man, was involved in a car crash with a police cruiser driven by Officer Jonathan Player in 2017. Terry alleged that Player was driving recklessly and not complying with state laws on driving emergency vehicles. The city of Killeen claimed that the case should be dismissed due to governmental immunity, which protects government entities from lawsuits.
The Court’s Ruling
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Terry cannot sue the officer unless he can prove that Player violated emergency response laws. The court’s decision is based on a previous ruling in a similar case involving an Austin driver. The justices stated that it would take more for Terry to claim that the officer was reckless and that the city should not be immune from the lawsuit.
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling highlights the high bar for claims against police officers. Attorney Tammy Holt, who represents Terry, said that the court’s decision inserts an additional level of immunity for officers who injure plaintiffs while responding to emergency calls. Attorney Ryan Henry, who is not involved in the case, explained that the rules for suing a governmental entity for a car crash are different from those for suing a regular driver. Allowing for immunity helps avoid draining a city’s funding, he said.
The Standard for Proving Wrongdoing
The normal standard for proving wrongdoing in car crash cases is general negligence. However, in cases involving emergency vehicles, the standard is higher. The plaintiff must prove that the officer was reckless, which means that the officer knew a high degree of danger existed and intentionally disregarded it. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that the standard for emergency services is not recklessness, but rather adherence to applicable laws.
The 911 Emergency Service Law
The "9-1-1 Emergency Service" section of the Texas Tort Claims Act states that governments may be held liable for an employee’s damaging action while responding to a 911 call only if that action "violates a statute or ordinance applicable to the action." The high court ordered the Third Court of Appeals to rehear the case, considering the 911 emergency service law, which does not take into account an officer’s potential recklessness.
Next Steps
The Third Court of Appeals will rehear the case, and the lower court may unilaterally issue an opinion based on the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling or ask for both sides to make their cases again. Attorney Holt hopes that the court will give her client a chance to explain how the officer failed to comply with the 911 statute and that the case should proceed.
Conclusion
The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling sets a higher standard for victims to prove that police officers are liable in car crash cases. The decision highlights the complexities of suing governmental entities and the need for plaintiffs to prove that officers violated applicable laws. The case will now be reheard by the Third Court of Appeals, which will consider the 911 emergency service law and its implications for the case.
