Reported / Citable
Background
Jasmine Jade Gariet sued Harris County for negligence and gross negligence after Harris County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Jeffrey Saunders struck her car while responding to a priority-one residential-burglary call. Saunders entered an intersection against a red light with his emergency lights and siren activated. Gariet had a green light, and the collision caused her vehicle to rotate and strike a pole.
The County filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. It argued that the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception preserved its governmental immunity and that Saunders’s official immunity also barred the claims. The trial court denied the motion, and the County brought an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s majority reversed the trial court and rendered judgment dismissing Gariet’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. As described in the dissent, the majority held that Gariet failed to raise a fact issue regarding application of the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception.
Justice Rivas-Molloy dissented. She concluded that the crash report, the Sheriff’s Office’s internal review, Saunders’s deposition testimony, and the dash-camera video raised factual disputes over whether Saunders slowed as necessary for safe operation, properly cleared the intersection, or acted with reckless disregard for others’ safety. She also concluded that the County failed to conclusively establish Saunders’s good faith—and therefore official immunity—because its evidence did not adequately address the particularized need-versus-risk factors governing the emergency response.
Key Takeaways
- The majority held that the emergency exception preserved Harris County’s immunity because Gariet did not raise a fact issue sufficient to defeat that exception.
- The court reversed the denial of the County’s jurisdictional plea and rendered a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The dissent would have affirmed because it viewed the evidence as creating factual disputes about compliance with emergency-driving law, recklessness, and official immunity.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the jurisdictional significance of the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception in collision suits involving emergency responders. Even when an injury arises from a government employee’s use of a motor vehicle, the plaintiff must overcome an applicable statutory exception to the Act’s waiver of immunity.
The dissent also highlights an evidentiary divide over how courts should treat crash reports, internal disciplinary findings, officer testimony, and video evidence when deciding whether emergency driving complied with governing law and whether an officer acted in good faith.