the City of Watauga v. Russell Gordon
434 S.W.3d 586, 2014 WL 2535995, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 683 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of excessive force during a lawful arrest, even if the resulting injury was unintentional, arises from the intentional tort of battery, not negligence, and is therefore barred by governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
Facts:
- City of Watauga police officers stopped Russell Gordon on suspicion of drunk driving.
- Gordon declined to perform a sobriety test and was arrested without resistance.
- At the scene, an officer handcuffed Gordon, who complained that the handcuffs were too tight.
- Gordon's complaint about the tightness of the handcuffs was ignored by the officer.
- Later, when being transported to the city jail, Gordon was handcuffed again.
- Gordon again informed the officers that the handcuffs were too tight and causing him pain, but his complaints were again ignored.
- Gordon sustained injuries to his wrists as a result of the handcuffing.
Procedural Posture:
- Russell Gordon sued the City of Watauga in a Texas state trial court.
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
- The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction.
- The City of Watauga, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas. Russell Gordon was the appellee.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order, holding that Gordon had asserted a valid negligence claim for which immunity was waived.
- The City of Watauga subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for personal injuries caused by a police officer's allegedly negligent use of handcuffs during an arrest arise from negligence, for which governmental immunity is waived, or from the intentional tort of battery, for which immunity is not waived?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Devine
No, a claim for personal injuries caused by a police officer's use of handcuffs during an arrest arises from the intentional tort of battery, for which governmental immunity is not waived. The Texas Tort Claims Act's waiver of immunity for negligence does not apply to claims arising from intentional torts. An arrest, by its nature, involves a battery—an intentional and offensive contact—which is privileged only to the extent that the force used is reasonable. A claim that an officer used too much force, such as by applying handcuffs too tightly, is a claim of excessive force, which is fundamentally a battery claim. The officer's lack of specific intent to cause injury is irrelevant; the intent required for battery is the intent to make the contact, not the intent to cause the resulting harm. Because Gordon's claim is substantively a battery claim, it falls under the intentional-tort exception, and the City's governmental immunity is not waived.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between negligence and battery in the context of law enforcement actions in Texas. By classifying all excessive force claims, even those involving unintended injuries, as battery, the court narrows the scope of the Texas Tort Claims Act's waiver of immunity. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to sue governmental entities for injuries sustained during an arrest by framing the officer's conduct as mere negligence. The ruling reinforces the strength of governmental immunity, directing that courts must look to the 'gravamen,' or true nature, of the claim rather than the plaintiff's chosen label.
