Here’s an analysis of City of Houston v. Jarrett Johnson, No. 01-23-00356-CV, Texas First Court of Appeals, May 29, 2025). You can read the full opinion by clicking here.

Case Summary

Facts:

  • Jarrett Johnson was hit by a Houston Police Department (HPD) patrol car driven by Officer Michael Doyle Cater Jr. while Johnson was driving through a green light. 
  • Officer Cater ran a red light while responding to a priority two emergency call (a shooting), allegedly at a high rate of speed and (crucially) with disputed use of lights and siren.
  • Johnson suffered serious injuries and sued the City of Houston, alleging negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA).
  • The City moved for summary judgment, claiming governmental immunity based on official immunity for the officer and the TTCA’s emergency exception.

Procedural Posture:

  • The trial court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment.
  • The City appealed, asserting entitlement to immunity.
  1. Was Officer Cater entitled to official immunity (and thus was the City immune)?
  2. Did the TTCA’s emergency exception apply, preserving the City’s immunity?

Key Points of Dispute

  • Credibility and Factual Inconsistencies: Both Officer Cater and Johnson gave inconsistent accounts—especially about Cater’s speed, use of siren/lights, and whether he slowed down at the red light.
  • Physical Evidence: Video footage and accident reports did not conclusively support either side. The bodycam video did not clearly show speed or siren use.
  • Expert and Investigating Officer Testimony: HPD’s own Sergeant Hill and Johnson’s expert agreed Cater failed to slow as required by law and did not exercise due care.
  • Disciplinary Action: HPD disciplined Officer Cater for his conduct during the incident.

The Court’s Analysis

1. Official Immunity

  • Test: Official immunity shields police when they act in good faith, with discretion, and within authority.
  • Good Faith Standard: Would a reasonable officer have believed the need to respond outweighed the risk to public safety?
  • Holding: The City did not conclusively prove good faith. The evidence was conflicting on key facts (speed, siren, whether Cater slowed). Factual disputes are for a jury, not summary judgment.

2. TTCA Emergency Exception

  • Test: Immunity remains if the officer, in an emergency, complies with laws on emergency action (e.g., slowing before a red light). If not, immunity is lost.
  • Key Law: Texas Transportation Code § 546.001(2): An emergency vehicle may run a red light only after slowing as necessary for safe operation.
  • Holding: There is a genuine factual dispute over whether Cater slowed as required. Testimony and reports suggest he did not. Therefore, summary judgment was improper.

Ruling

  • The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment.
  • The case will proceed to trial for a jury to resolve the factual disputes.

Practical Takeaways

  • Summary judgment is inappropriate when key facts are disputed, especially about an officer’s conduct in an emergency.
  • Governmental immunity under the TTCA is not absolute—compliance with emergency driving laws is required.
  • Bodycam footage may be inconclusive if it doesn’t clearly capture disputed facts.
  • An officer’s internal discipline can be relevant to show lack of good faith or due care.
  • Credibility issues, conflicting evidence, and expert testimony often mean only a jury can resolve the case.

Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.

Post A Comment