Legal Opinion

Kolster v. City of El Paso

Texas Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1998No. 96-1246PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEnoch, Justice

in which GONZALEZ, BAKER, ABBOTT, and HANKINSON, Justices, join.

As we explained today in City of Amarillo *59v. Martin,1 to recover damages resulting from the emergency operation of an emergency vehicle, a plaintiff must show that the operator has committed an act that the operator knew or should have known posed a high degree of risk of serious injury — in other words, that the operator has acted recklessly.

We granted writ of error in this case because, like Martin, it presented the question of how culpable a municipal employee’s acts must be in operating an emergency vehicle in an emergency…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. El Chico Corp. v. PooleTexas Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Sage Street Associates v. Northdale Construction Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1993
  3. City of Amarillo v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Larson v. Cook Consultants, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. KnightenTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Hale v. PenaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1999
  3. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. v. City of Edinburg, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2000
  4. Clark Ex Rel. Estate of Clark v. South Carolina Department of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
  5. University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2012

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API