 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasquez v. City of San Antonio3/28/2001
Petition for review denied August 30, 2001.
JUAN A. VASQUEZ, APPELLANT
v.
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT AS EMPLOYER OF CARLOS GARZA (#0681), AS A SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICER, AND R. NAYLOR (#0922), AS A SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICER, APPELLEES
From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 97-CI-07434 Honorable David Berchelmann, Jr., Judge Presiding
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Catherine Stone, Justice
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice
AFFIRMED
Juan A. Vasquez sued the City of San Antonio and two individual San Antonio police officers, alleging he sustained injuries during the course of his arrest for family violence. The city filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, and Vasquez has appealed to this court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Factual and Procedural Background
Juan A. Vasquez was charged with and convicted of family violence and resisting arrest. San Antonio Police Officers, Carlos Garza and R. Naylor, responded to a 911 call and upon arrival at the Vasquez residence, found Mrs. Vasquez crying in the kitchen with a golf ball size bump on her forehead. The officers found Vasquez in the bedroom and informed him he was under arrest for assaulting his wife. Vasquez resisted arrest and in the process of being subdued, sustained injuries to his face and eye. EMS was called to attend to Vasquez's injuries and following treatment he was transported to the city jail.
Vazquez filed a lawsuit alleging the City of San Antonio, through its police officer, Garza, was negligent in the use of tangible property. The alleged tangible property was the boot of Officer Garza, which Vasquez claims caused his injuries when Garza kicked him. The City of San Antonio filed a motion for summary judgment that was granted by the trial court. Vasquez now appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of the City of San Antonio, and the denial of his motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
In a motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). When a defendant moves for summary judgment on an affirmative defense, like sovereign immunity, the defendant must conclusively prove each element of the defense as a matter of law. See Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex. 1984); City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex. 1994). Evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true, and every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant will be resolved in its favor. Id. at 548-49. When a trial court does not specify the grounds relied upon in granting summary judgment, we must affirm if any of the grounds asserted in support of the motion are meritorious. See id.; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S. & G.W., 858 S.W.2d 374, 380 (Tex. 1993).
Notice
The City of San Antonio asserted sovereign immunity in its motion for summary judgment. There is no question the city is a governmental unit. Therefore, it is entitled to receive notice that a claim has been filed against it no later than six months following the day on which the incident occurred. The notice must specify the injury claimed, the time and place of the injury,
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|