Loftin v. Morales
187 S.W.3d 533, 2005 WL 3434431, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10427 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a government employee to receive official immunity in a police pursuit case, they must prove that a reasonably prudent officer, under similar circumstances, could have believed that the immediate need to apprehend the suspect outweighed a clear risk of harm to the public.
Facts:
- Troopers Randy Loftin and Barry Evans observed a Ford Probe traveling seventy-four miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour zone.
- When Trooper Loftin activated the patrol car's emergency lights, the Probe's driver accelerated, initiating a police pursuit.
- The pursuit reached speeds up to one hundred miles per hour over rural roads, through a golf course, and into a rural residential community called Shadybrook.
- During the chase, Trooper Evans observed small objects thrown from the Probe's passenger window, which he suspected were contraband.
- While traveling at approximately fifty to sixty miles per hour within the Shadybrook residential community, the troopers' patrol car collided with a pickup truck driven by Misty Morales.
- The collision resulted in injuries to Misty Morales and the death of her five-year-old daughter, Donna Morales.
Procedural Posture:
- Misty Morales sued Troopers Randy Loftin and Barry Evans, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the State of Texas in a state trial court for personal injury and wrongful death.
- Donna Morales's father, Arnulfo Morales, filed a plea in intervention.
- The defendants (Appellants) filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the affirmative defense of official immunity.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The defendants then filed this interlocutory appeal of the denial to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the defendant police troopers establish as a matter of law that they acted in good faith during a high-speed pursuit, thereby entitling them to official immunity and summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sam Griffith
No. The troopers failed to establish as a matter of law that they acted in good faith, as their evidence did not conclusively show that the need to apprehend the suspect outweighed the clear risk of harm to the public. To be entitled to summary judgment based on official immunity, the moving party must prove each element of the defense, including good faith. The court analyzed the good faith balancing test from University of Houston v. Clark, weighing the 'need' to apprehend against the 'risk' of harm. The court found the initial offense was a mere traffic violation, indicating a low 'need' for immediate apprehension. In contrast, the 'risk' was high, as the 27-minute chase involved speeds up to 100 mph and proceeded through a residential area with which the officers were unfamiliar. The troopers' affidavits were deemed conclusory and failed to demonstrate a sufficient assessment of the risks or consideration of alternatives to the pursuit. Furthermore, contradictory statements made by Trooper Loftin in his deposition created a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment. Therefore, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to Morales, did not prove that a reasonably prudent officer could have believed continuing the pursuit was justified.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that official immunity for police officers in high-speed pursuits is not automatic and requires a specific, factual showing of good faith. The court's ruling emphasizes that conclusory statements by officers are insufficient to win summary judgment; they must present concrete evidence that they properly balanced the necessity of the pursuit against the potential danger to the public. The case serves as a crucial precedent in Texas personal injury law, demonstrating that contradictory testimony from an officer can create a fact issue sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion on immunity grounds. This holding ensures that claims of negligence against officers in such situations will more likely be decided by a jury rather than being dismissed pre-trial.
