City of Temple v. Stephan Peterson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hilda Peterson
Opinion
Stephan Peterson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate
of Hilda Peterson, Deceased, Appellee
In the early morning hours of August 6, 1996, Stephan Peterson's wife Hilda had a severe asthma attack. Peterson's call to the City's 9-1-1 service was answered by dispatcher Ann Brown. Peterson asked Brown to send an ambulance to his residence at 110 West Young. Brown told Peterson that her computer listed his address as 110 East Young, not West Young. Peterson indicated the computer was inaccurate and reiterated that he lived on West Young. He told Brown "we've been through this" before with the City. Peterson then gave Brown detailed directions to his home on West Young and urged her to hurry because the situation was serious. Notwithstanding Peterson's directions, Brown dispatched a fire truck and an ambulance to 110 East Young. This was in fact the wrong address: Peterson lived on West Young. When no ambulance arrived, Peterson called 9-1-1 and again urged Brown to send an ambulance to 110 West Young. His home was close to a fire-department facility, and Young could not understand why the ambulance had not arrived. Brown assured him help was on the way. A few minutes later, Peterson called again, sounding more frantic. He repeated that he lived on West Young and again gave detailed directions to his home. Peterson called a fourth time and informed the dispatcher that his wife had gone into "arrest." Peterson called 9-1-1 five times in a period of ten minutes. When the ambulance finally arrived, Hilda Peterson was dead.
Brown initially dispatched the ambulance to the wrong address. Although Peterson called back repeatedly to say that he lived on West Young, Brown never changed her erroneous instructions to the ambulance personnel. An emergency-medical technician from the ambulance eventually called Brown, uncertain about the address she had given. Rather than informing the technician about the possible mix-up, Brown repeated her instructions to an East Young location. The ambulance continued to search for the Peterson residence on East Young.
As Peterson continued to call 9-1-1, the ambulance eventually arrived at 110 East Young. The ambulance technician discovered it was the wrong address and again called Brown asking for help. Brown falsely told the technician that Peterson told her he lived on East Young; that Peterson had called four times insisting he lived on East Young. She told the technician--in direct contradiction of her statement to Peterson--that her computer showed that Peterson lived on West Young.
The technician immediately told Brown they were going to West Young. When they arrived at the Peterson home, Hilda Peterson was dead.
Peterson filed a wrongful-death action against the City. The City moved for summary judgment, based on a defense of sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion. The City appeals.
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a governmental unit is not liable for the torts of its officers or agents in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision creating such liability. State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784, 785-86 (Tex. 1979). The Texas Tort Claims Act ("TTCA") creates a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021 (West 1997). For immunity to be waived under the TTCA, the claim must arise under one of three specific areas of liability for which immunity is waived, and the claim must not fall under one of the exceptions from waiver. Alvarado v. City of Brownsville, 865 S.W.2d 148, 155 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995).
Peterson's claim arises under section 101.062 of the TTCA, dealing specifically with 9-1-1 telephone service. That section provides as follows:
(b) This chapter applies to a claim against a public agency that arises from an action of an employee of the public agency or a volunteer under direction of the public agency and that involves providing 9-1-1 service or responding to a 9-1-1 emergency call only if the action violates a statute or ordinance applicable to the action.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.061 (West 1997) (emphasis added). Thus, governmental immunity is not waived in relation to Brown's actions unless they violated an applicable ordinance. See Fernandez v. City of El Paso, 876 S.W.2d 370, 376 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1993, writ denied). The only question on appeal is whether Brown did not, as a matter of law, violate a City ordinance--the conclusion necessary to sustain the City's motion for summary judgment.
Peterson contends disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the City's contention that Brown did not, as a matter of law, violate a City ordinance. Section 1-11 of City ordinance 1706, entitled "Standard of care for emergency action," pertains to the case. (1) Under the ordinance, Brown was authorized to act or not act "to effectively deal with the emergency." Her acts and omissions were "effective" if in any way they might have contributed or "reasonably be thought to" have contributed to preserving life; and Brown's acts and omissions are not within the waiver of sovereign immunity if they amounted to a mere "failure to use ordinary care in [the] emergency." The express purpose of the ordinance is "to assure effective action in emergency situations" by preserving immunity for simple negligence.
To establish its sovereign-immunity defense, the City was obliged to establish that ordinary minds could not differ on the conclusion that Brown's actions and inactions were "effective" in the sense of the ordinance, notwithstanding that the trial court was obliged to take as true any facts contained in the summary-judgment record that are favorable to Peterson's claim, indulging every inference and resolving every doubt in his favor. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
City of Temple v. Stephan Peterson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hilda Peterson (City of Temple v. Stephan Peterson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hilda Peterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.