HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling denying the city of Houston’s bid for governmental immunity in a lawsuit brought over an ambulance’s automobile collision.
The lawsuit was filed by Percy Taylor, who claims the ambulance driver failed to stop at a stop sign and did not have the sirens or lights on when the ambulance hit him while he was on his motorcycle, causing him to slide across the pavement and sustain injuries.
According to the 14th Court’s opinion, the ambulance driver testified that he and another employee were dispatched in response to a 911 call regarding a man in critical condition who was suffering complications following surgery, and that they were transporting the patient to a hospital, with lights and sirens activated, when the accident occurred.
In response to the lawsuit, the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, asserting immunity based on the emergency exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act.
The trial court denied motion and plea and the 14th Court affirmed the decision on April 2, finding that “there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether the City’s employee was responding to an emergency at the time of the accident.”
Justices further found that there was evidence that the employee did not activate the lights and siren while transporting the patient to the hospital, that the patient’s condition was “stable” during the ride, and that the patient requested transportation to a specific hospital that was farther away.
“Even if an emergency exists when an ambulance is dispatched to a patient, the Act’s exception may not apply if, at the time of the alleged negligence, the employee was no longer responding to an emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation,” the opinion states. “Thus, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue regarding whether (the ambulance driver) was responding to an emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation at the time of the accident.
“The trial court did not err by denying the City’s plea and motion based on the emergency exception. The trial court’s order is affirmed.”
Appeals case No. 14-22-00629-CV