HOUSTON - Last February, the 14th Court of Appeals dismissed an automobile collision lawsuit against the city of Houston.
Court records show the plaintiff in the case filed a motion for rehearing and on Jan. 8 justices withdrew their previous opinion and issued a new judgment.
On rehearing, the 14th Court found that the trial court did not err in denying the city’s plea to the jurisdiction, but also agreed with the city that the amount awarded was in excess of the relief permitted by the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.
After a bench trial, a trial court awarded Jonathan Gonzales $250,000 in damages on his negligence claim against the city over a traffic accident between Gonzales and a peace officer.
On appeal, the city had argued that the trial court erred by not dismissing Gonzales’ claims for want of jurisdiction because the peace officer was responding to an emergency situation, and the officer did not exhibit conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.
On Feb. 28, 2023, the 14th Court reversed the final judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment dismissing Gonzales’ suit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that no evidence exists to support a finding that the officer’s actions reflected conscious indifference to or reckless disregard for the safety of others.
The opinion on rehearing, however, found that Gonzales met his burden to produce evidence negating the applicability of the emergency exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act.
“However, we agree with the City that the trial court erred by awarding Gonzales relief in excess of the aggregate relief permitted by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169,” the opinion states.
“Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse in part, and render judgment awarding Gonzales the sum of $100,000 as permitted by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.”
The city is represented by Houston City Attorney Artuto G. Michel.
Case No. 14-21-00482-CV