|
|
Davila v. Flores12/2/1999
lic official or employee has met his burden of proof on good faith, the plaintiff may attempt to controvert the existence of the employee's good faith. City of Pharr v. Ruiz, 944 S.W.2d 709, 715 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); Texas Dep't of Public Safety v. Tanner, 928 S.W.2d 731, 736 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no writ). But to avoid a summary judgment based on official immunity, the plaintiff carries a much higher burden of proof. Ruiz, 944 S.W.2d at 715; Tanner, 928 S.W.2d at 736. In order to raise a fact issue, a plaintiff is required to prove that "no reasonable person in the defendant's position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant's acts." City of Lancaster, 883 S.W.2d at 657; Ruiz, 944 S.W.2d at 715.
Accordingly, in the present case, the burden shifted to Flores to show no reasonable person in Davila and Steen's position could have thought the circumstances justified disseminating the information in the manner that they did. However, Flores failed to present any controverting evidence to disprove good faith or to show that the dissemination of information was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Scope of Authority
An official acts within the scope of her authority if she is discharging the duties generally assigned to her. City of Lancaster, 883 S.W.2d at 858. The fact that a specific act that forms the basis of the suit may have been wrongly or negligently performed does not take it outside of the scope of authority. Tanner, 928 S.W.2d at 735; Koerselman, 875 S.W.2d at 350.
The conduct of the present investigation by Davila and Steen, including their dissemination of information concerning that investigation to other employees of the Commission, was clearly conducted as a part of the duties assigned to them. Accordingly, the allegedly wrongful dissemination was carried out within the scope of their authority as employees of the Commission.
We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to grant Davila and Steen's motion for summary judgment. We sustain their point of error.
The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and judgment is here RENDERED that Flores take nothing on his claims against them.
ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice
Publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this 2nd day of December, 1999.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Show All Case Laws Texas PEO
|