City of Amarillo v. Martin

• Decision Date: 05 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 96-0123,96-0123
• Citation: 971 S.W.2d 426
• Parties: 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 870 CITY OF AMARILLO, Petitioner, v. Erica Shae MARTIN, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 426

971 S.W.2d 426

41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 870

CITY OF AMARILLO, Petitioner, v. Erica Shae MARTIN, Respondent.

No. 96-0123.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued Oct. 9, 1997.

Decided June 5, 1998.

Merril E. Nunn, Amarillo, for Petitioner.

Glynn C. Turquand, Brian Douglas Walters, San Antonio, for Respondent.

ENOCH, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GONZALEZ, HECHT, OWEN, BAKER, ABBOTT, and HANKINSON, Justices, join.

Firefighter Brent Clark collided with two vehicles while driving a City of Amarillo fire truck on an emergency call. We must decide whether the City, Clark's employer, may be liable to Erica Martin, the driver of one of the other vehicles, for Clark's simple negligence. The trial court said yes. So did the court of appeals. 912 S.W.2d 349. However, we say no.

I. Facts

Clark was driving the fire truck with warning lights and sirens operating when he approached an intersection. He reduced speed, but drove through the intersection against a red light. He then collided with two vehicles crossing the intersection, one of them Martin's. Martin sued the City for property damage, alleging that Clark negligently failed to maintain a proper lookout, to maintain a safe stopping distance, and to yield the right of way.

Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Martin based on a conclusion of law that Clark had operated the fire truck negligently. The City appealed, arguing that emergency personnel are liable only for reckless conduct, and therefore, the City was entitled to immunity because the trial court found that Clark "was not acting in reckless disregard for the safety of others." The court of appeals affirmed, holding on rehearing that emergency personnel are liable for acts of mere negligence, and, therefore, that the trial court did not err. 912 S.W.2d at 353.

II. Texas Tort Claims Act

Under the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity, a municipality is immune from tort liability for its own acts or the acts of its agents unless the Texas Tort Claims Act waives immunity. See City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 658 (Tex.1994). The Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for:

(1) property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment if:

(A) the property damage, personal injury or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment; and

(B) the employee would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law....

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 101.021 (emphasis added). But, the Tort Claims Act includes an exception to this waiver:

This chapter does not apply to a claim arising:

...

(2) from the action of an employee while responding to an emergency call or reacting to an emergency situation if the action is in compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable to emergency action, or in the absence of such a law or ordinance, if the action is [not] taken with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others. ¹

Id. § 101.055.

At the outset, we note that the substantive law in effect at the time of the accident controls. See, e.g., Sadler v. Sadler, 769 S.W.2d 886, 886-87 (Tex.1989) (per curiam). Under emergency conditions, an emergency vehicle operator is entitled to various privileges. See TEX.REV.CIV. STAT. art. 6701d, § 24(b), repealed by Act of May 1, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 165, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 1025 (current version at TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 546.001-.005). However, these privileges do "not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others." Id. § 24(e) (current version at TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 546.005). In another section of article 6701d dealing with the duties of civilian drivers, the Legislature repeated that it did not intend "to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway." Id. § 75(b) (current version at TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 545.156(b)).

Because article 6701d controls Clark's action as an emergency vehicle operator in an emergency situation, we look to see if Clark complied with that article. Specifically, we review section 24(e) of article 6701d.

III. Interpretation of Article 6701d, Section 24(e)

The court of appeals is not alone in struggling to understand section 24(e). The Legislature adopted section 24(e) from the Uniform Vehicle Code. Many other states have drafted statutes from the same model, and their courts have also struggled to understand what it means to say that an emergency vehicle driver should exercise due regard for others while responding to an emergency, but must face the consequences of reckless disregard for others.

Several courts have agreed with the court of appeals that provisions such as section 24(e) impose liability for mere negligence. See Doran v. City of Madison, 519 So.2d 1308, 1312-13 (Ala.1988); Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson, 169 Ariz. 147, 817 P.2d 951, 955 (1991); City of Little Rock v. Weber, 298 Ark. 382, 767 S.W.2d 529, 533 (1989); Barnes v. Toppin, 482 A.2d 749, 755 (Del.1984); City of Baltimore v. Fire Ins. Salvage Corps, 219 Md. 75, 148 A.2d 444, 447 (1959); City of Kalamazoo v. Priest, 331 Mich. 43, 49 N.W.2d 52, 54 (1951); Cairl v. City of St. Paul, 268 N.W.2d 908, 912 (Minn.1978); Wright v. City of Knoxville, 898 S.W.2d 177, 179-80 (Tenn.1995); Estate of Cavanaugh v. Andrade, 202 Wis.2d 290, 550 N.W.2d 103, 114-15 (1996).

Many other courts also have imposed liability for mere negligence, but placed great emphasis on the circumstances of emergency action. See Rutherford v. Alaska, 605 P.2d 16, 18-19 & n. 5 (Alaska 1979); Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.2d 35, 22 Cal.Rptr. 866, 372 P.2d 906, 916 (1962); Bouhl v. Smith, 130 Ill.App.3d 1067, 86 Ill.Dec. 247, 475 N.E.2d 244, 246-47 (1985); Belding v. Town of New Whiteland, 622 N.E.2d 1291, 1293 (Ind.1993); Thornton v. Shore, 233 Kan. 737, 666 P.2d 655, 661 (1983); Stenberg v. Neel, 188 Mont. 333, 613 P.2d 1007, 1010 (1980); Lee v. City of Omaha, 209 Neb. 345, 307 N.W.2d 800, 803 (1981); Fielder v. Jenkins, 274 N.J.Super. 485, 644 A.2d 666, 668 (Ct.App.Div.1994); Siburg v. Johnson, 249 Or. 556, 439 P.2d 865, 870 (1968); Brown v. Spokane County Fire Protection Dist. No. 1, 100 Wash.2d 188, 668 P.2d 571, 574-76 (1983). Of course, a negligence inquiry always considers what a reasonably prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstances. See, e.g., St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Tex.1995). Therefore, the emphasis these cases place on the emergency circumstances seems to indicate an intent to create a modified, heightened negligence threshold.

But, courts in Iowa, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have held that provisions such as section 24(e) only waive immunity for recklessness. See Schatz v. Cutler, 395 F.Supp. 271, 274 (D.Vt.1975) (interpreting the Vermont statute as imposing a recklessness, or "aggravated negligence," standard); Morris v. Leaf, 534 N.W.2d 388, 390 (Iowa 1995) (equating "due regard" with negligence generally, but concluding that it means recklessness in this context); Smith v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 609 So.2d 1024, 1027 (La.Ct.App.1992) ("The driver of an emergency vehicle can only be held liable for negligence to the degree that it constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of others."); Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 620 N.Y.S.2d 297, 644 N.E.2d 988, 989 (1994); Roberts v. Kettelle, 116 R.I. 283, 356 A.2d 207, 213-14 (1976).

From our inquiry, it is evident that most courts have interpreted provisions such as section 24(e) to impose liability for negligence. However, as noted above, many of the courts simultaneously established a negligence standard, but went to great lengths to explain that negligence for emergency vehicle operators is not at all comparable to negligence for civilian drivers. See, e.g., Thornton, 666 P.2d at 661 (noting that one of the circumstances to be considered in the negligence inquiry is the emergency vehicle operator's right to assume that other drivers will yield). Ultimately, we fail to see how this modified-negligence inquiry is meaningfully different from the recklessness standard that we adopt today. More particularly, we believe that a recklessness standard provides a better-defined standard than "heightened negligence."

Furthermore, emergency vehicle operators and their governmental employers, in most states, are immune from suits based on negligence because the employees' official immunity is waived only for more culpable conduct, such as gross negligence, bad faith, or willful or wanton conduct. See, e.g., Logue v. Wright, 260 Ga. 206, 392 S.E.2d 235, 237 (1990); Cooper v. Wade, 218 Mich.App. 649, 554 N.W.2d 919, 923 (1996); Creighton v. Conway, 937 S.W.2d 247, 250-51 (Mo.Ct.App.1996); Canico v. Hurtado, 144 N.J. 361, 676 A.2d 1083, 1085 (1996); Fahnbulleh v. Strahan, 73 Ohio St.3d 666, 653 N.E.2d 1186, 1188 (1995). Therefore, a substantial majority of states provide some form of immunity barring suit against governmental employers or employees based on negligent operation of emergency vehicles. Whatever form such immunity takes, the underlying policy is the same: to balance the safety of the public with the need for prompt responses to police, fire, and medical emergencies. In light of that need, and the privileges granted to emergency vehicles, we hold that section 24(e) of article 6701d imposes liability for reckless operation of an emergency vehicle in an emergency situation. To recover damages resulting from the emergency operation of an emergency vehicle, a plaintiff must show that the operator has committed an act that the operator knew or should have...