The municipal government of Houston has stepped back from a disputed procedural tactic commonly used to dismiss lawsuits against police officers involved in traffic collisions, deciding to withdraw a motion after facing pointed skepticism from the bench.
The retreat occurred in a state district courtroom where Judge Kristen Hawkins raised sharp questions regarding the legitimacy of the city's legal arguments in an ongoing vehicle accident dispute.
The underlying lawsuit arose from a collision in Houston’s East Downtown area involving an on-duty police cruiser and a civilian motorist. Seeking to end the case before trial, city attorneys claimed that the municipality could not be held liable for damages because the officer was actively responding to an emergency with emergency lights and sirens operating.
However, those assertions appeared to be contradicted by dash camera footage capturing the incident, as well as by the responding officer's own written crash report.
During a preliminary hearing, Judge Hawkins openly challenged the city's motion to dismiss, warning that the legal strategy bordered on an improper use of the court's time and municipal funds. Hawkins remarked that she was inclined to view the filing as a waste of judicial resources and a waste of taxpayer money.
Rather than submitting an in-depth brief to defend the legal basis of the motion as ordered by the judge, Houston’s legal team chose to withdraw the filing altogether, according to official court records.
Following the withdrawal, the city legal department issued an unsigned statement indicating that municipal attorneys take court rulings seriously and consistently review defenses, motions, and appeals to verify full compliance with state rules and statutes. The department noted that any legal filings deemed wanting would be dismissed, withdrawn, or avoided entirely.
The city’s decision to drop the motion drew strong criticism from Daragh Carter, the attorney representing the injured driver. Carter suggested that the city recognized its stance would not withstand judicial scrutiny, arguing that those overseeing civil litigation for Houston must evaluate whether such tactics are legally appropriate and in the public interest.
At the core of the controversy is Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The mechanism is intended to swiftly throw out claims that are so baseless that no reasonable person could believe them, requiring judges to determine whether an assertion is plausible based solely on the text of the filing, without reviewing evidence.
Legal experts and plaintiffs' attorneys assert that city lawyers have increasingly weaponized Rule 91a against valid lawsuits stemming from police vehicle collisions. Instead of quickly eliminating frivolous claims, critics say the strategy functions primarily to delay litigation for months and generate rulings that the city can tie up in appeals.
This procedural maneuvering comes during a period in which Houston is grappling with a rising volume of claims filed by drivers hit by on-duty officers, along with climbing financial payouts connected to police crash settlements and verdicts.
A review of court records revealed that the city utilized Rule 91a motions to seek dismissals in a majority of the first 20 vehicle collision lawsuits brought against it in state court this year.
Judicial resistance to the city's reliance on these motions has not been limited to trial courts. In a July ruling, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's denial of a municipal Rule 91a motion, noting four earlier instances in which appellate judges had rejected the exact same strategy from the city, and declined to even address Houston's additional arguments.
Although Rule 91a does not exist in federal court, federal judges have similarly expressed frustration with Houston's aggressive posture in police crash cases.
Last month, a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voiced dismay over the city’s continued resistance to liability in a 2021 fatal collision. In that case, an officer named Christopher Cabrera drove 70 mph in a 35 mph zone on North Shepherd Drive, fatally striking 75-year-old Charles Payne.
Payne's family originally pursued their claims in state court but transferred the matter to federal court after city attorneys filed a Rule 91a motion. The city subsequently tried to have the federal case thrown out in 2024 by maintaining that the officer had been responding to an emergency.
As scrutiny grows across both state and federal benches, Houston’s litigation practices remain under intense pressure from judges and litigants questioning the propriety of using procedural roadblocks to contest legitimate police accident claims.
(0)