Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rita Renee Ramos and Jesse Joe Rodriguez sued the City of Houston over a November 2022 motor-vehicle collision. Their live petition alleged that a City employee, driving a City vehicle, negligently entered or failed to clear an intersection and struck Ramos’s vehicle, causing personal injuries and other damages.
The City moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that governmental immunity barred the suit and that the plaintiffs had not pleaded facts establishing a waiver or negating any applicable exclusion or exception. The motion did not identify a specific exclusion or exception. After the trial court denied the motion, the City argued on interlocutory appeal that the pleadings failed to negate the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency-response and 9-1-1 exceptions.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed. Construing the petition liberally, the court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a waiver of governmental immunity under the TTCA’s motor-vehicle provision. The allegations that a City employee caused the collision while driving a City vehicle supported a presumption that the employee was acting within the scope of employment, and rebutting that presumption would require evidence that cannot be considered on a Rule 91a motion.
The court also held that the plaintiffs were not required to negate the emergency-response or 9-1-1 exceptions because nothing in the live petition plausibly implicated either one. Rule 91a required the court to consider only the pleading of the cause of action and permitted pleading exhibits, so it could not consider the City’s assertion that the vehicle was an ambulance traveling with its lights and siren activated or other facts outside the petition, even if undisputed. The court expressly disagreed with contrary reasoning from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- Allegations that a City employee negligently caused injuries while operating a City vehicle were sufficient at the pleading stage to invoke the TTCA’s motor-vehicle waiver.
- A plaintiff must negate only those TTCA exceptions that the petition plausibly implicates.
- In deciding a Rule 91a motion, courts may not rely on facts outside the pleading of the cause of action merely because the parties do not dispute them.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the pleading-focused nature of Rule 91a immunity challenges. A governmental unit cannot obtain dismissal by introducing unpleaded facts that would bring a claim within a statutory immunity exception; it must rely on what the plaintiff’s operative pleading actually alleges.
The opinion also identifies a disagreement between Houston’s two intermediate appellate courts over whether undisputed facts outside the pleadings may be considered in this setting, an issue that may affect litigation strategy in TTCA cases.