City of San Antonio v. Maspero
| Decision Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-1144 |
| Parties | City of San Antonio, Petitioner, v. Jimmy Maspero and Regina Maspero, Individually and as Next Friends of W.M., W.M., W.M., Deceased, and W.M., Deceased, Minor Children, Respondents |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Argued September 28, 2021
On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas
This case concerns waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act when innocent bystanders suffer harm during a police chase. The plaintiffs, respondents in this Court contend that their injuries arose from a San Antonio police officer's vehicular pursuit of a fleeing suspect who crashed into their car. They sued the City pursuant to Section 101.021 of the Act, which waives governmental immunity when an injury "arises from the operation or use" of a motor vehicle by a governmental employee. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.021(1)(A). The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the officer's actions were too attenuated from the plaintiffs' injuries to satisfy Section 101.021(1)(A) and that, in any event, the emergency exception in Section 101.055(2) of the Act forecloses its application because the officer's actions were not reckless and did not violate applicable laws or ordinances.
The trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed, holding the City's immunity was waived. After reviewing the record, we agree with the trial court and hold that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Specifically, we hold that under the Act's emergency exception, the Act "does not apply to" the plaintiffs' claims and thus cannot waive the City's immunity from suit. Id. § 101.055(2). We also reject the court of appeals' holding that independent grounds exist to waive immunity from a claim for negligent implementation of policy. In light of those holdings, we do not reach or express any opinion on the issue of whether the plaintiffs' injuries arose from the officer's operation or use of a motor vehicle, as would be required to establish waiver of immunity under Section 101.021(1)(A) if the Act applied. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The incident at issue in this case arose from a 2012 joint task-force investigation of a drug-trafficking operation at a rural property on Morin Road in San Antonio.[1] The task force's intelligence indicated that an illegal organization had received a large shipment of marijuana at the property for distribution. Further investigation revealed vehicles were frequently entering and exiting the property, consistent with drug trafficking.
The task force developed a plan that would allow potential suspects to be stopped without exposing the rest of the operation. Detectives in unmarked cars stationed themselves at the ranch, and uniformed San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) officers and Bexar County Sheriff's Office deputies were deployed in the surrounding area. When a vehicle left the Morin Road property, the detectives would trail the suspect vehicle, broadcast its description, location, and direction of travel, and then follow the vehicle until they observed a traffic violation. Uniformed officers would then stop and detain suspects far from the Morin Road property in order to avoid alerting others at the ranch. The plan did not specify what was to be done in the event that a suspect refused to pull over and fled.
On September 9, 2012, SAPD Officer Kimberly Kory was assigned to assist with the investigation. At around 4:30 p.m., she positioned herself at a Shell Station at Highway 16 and Loop 1604. Her supervisor, Sergeant Dominic Scaramozi, arrived shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, David Rodriguez entered the Morin Road property in a black Chevrolet Suburban. When Rodriguez later exited the property, two detectives followed him and broadcast his description and license plate number. Officer Kory received the radio communication, left the Shell Station, and proceeded westbound on Loop 1604. Detectives broadcast that Rodriguez committed a traffic violation by failing to signal when changing lanes. Approximately one mile before IH-35, Officer Kory caught sight of Rodriguez's vehicle and activated her emergency lights and siren. Rodriguez initially slowed and seemed to pull over, but he then rapidly accelerated back into the main traffic lanes.
As noted, nothing in the record suggests that the task force provided officers with specific guidance about how they should respond to a fleeing suspect. However, the SAPD's "General Manual" contains detailed procedures governing vehicular pursuit of such suspects. Procedure 609 of the manual states, among other things, that "pursuits will not be initiated" for "[n]on-hazardous traffic violations," for "[t]raffic violations where the danger has passed," or when the "individuals fleeing are suspects only and the actual crime has not been determined." Further, officers must obtain "immediate authorization to continue the pursuit," and authorized pursuits of "[k]nown and felony offenders (other than Evading Arrest)" may be continued "depending on the hazardous circumstances and environmental factors."
When Rodriguez fled, Officer Kory immediately gave chase, following him down Loop 1604 and onto southbound IH-35. As she pursued him, Officer Kory radioed information about the Suburban's movements to Sergeant Scaramozi, who neither affirmatively authorized her to continue the pursuit nor instructed her to abandon it.
The parties highlight different aspects of the chase that ensued. The plaintiffs emphasize that traffic conditions were heavy and that the vehicles passed active school zones. They note that Officer Kory initially tried to keep pace with Rodriguez, swerving around eighteen-wheelers and speeding at close to 100 miles per hour.
The City emphasizes that Officer Kory slowed at two intersections Rodriguez sped through. For this reason, a gap grew between Officer Kory and Rodriguez, eventually causing her to temporarily lose sight of him near the Kinney Road exit on IH-35. At that point Officer Kory doubted she would catch Rodriguez, but she continued on, hoping to "maintain[] a line of sight" with him. Rodriguez reemerged heading south on the two-way access road adjacent to southbound IH-35 between Kinney Road and Shepherd Road. Officer Kory sped up and proceeded down the Shepherd Road exit ramp. While she was on the exit ramp, Rodriguez spun out twice, kicking up dust. Officer Kory continued to drive south on the access road towards him. When Rodriguez regained control, the Suburban was pointing north, and he headed back in that direction on the access road toward the Shepherd Road exit ramp.
From this point forward, the record is unclear as to whether Rodriguez intended to charge Officer Kory or evade apprehension. However, Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) records indicate that Officer Kory never stopped driving toward Rodriguez, and she turned her car toward him immediately after he drove past her on the access road.
Meanwhile, north of Rodriguez and Officer Kory, the Maspero family was proceeding onto the southbound lane of the two-way access road at the Shepherd Road exit. As Rodriguez sped north on the access road, he drove past Officer Kory's patrol car, missing it, but collided with the Masperos' vehicle. A diagram in the crash report suggests that Rodriguez had moved into the southbound lane to pass another car, causing the head-on collision. The impact tragically caused Jimmy and Regina Maspero to sustain incapacitating injuries and killed two of their young children.
The record contains conflicting evidence as to whether, at the time of the crash, Officer Kory's siren remained activated as required by statute and SAPD policy. Officer Kory attested that her siren was activated throughout the chase. However, the SAPD Pursuit Evaluation Report of the incident states that she had activated her emergency lights but does not mention the siren, and a witness to the accident testified that he recalled seeing the emergency lights but did not recall hearing the siren.
The Masperos sued the City and several individuals, including SAPD Chief of Police William McManus, Officer Kory, and Sergeant Scaramozi, [2] asserting both state and federal causes of action. The defendants removed the case to federal court, which dismissed all claims against the individual defendants and remanded the remaining state-law negligence claims against the City. The City subsequently filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting immunity from suit. It argued that the Masperos could not establish waiver of immunity under the Tort Claims Act because (1) no causal nexus exists between Officer Kory's operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle and the Masperos' injuries and (2) even if such a causal nexus exists, the Act's emergency exception preserves the City's immunity, as Officer Kory was responding to an emergency in accordance with applicable law.
In support of its plea, the City attached Officer Kory's and Sergeant Scaramozi's affidavits reflecting their accounts of the incident. It also included a report authored by its expert witness, former SAPD Chief of Police Albert Ortiz. In response to the plea, the Masperos included the SAPD Pursuit Evaluation Report, Officer Kory's and Sergeant Scaramozi's deposition testimony, the SAPD police report, the AVL records, the SAPD General Manual, the Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report, eyewitness testimony, and their own expert's report.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case, specifying in its order that (1) immunity is...
To continue reading
Request your trial