§ 101.062.9-1-1 Emergency Service

A limitation stated as an application, and the difference is the point.

The chapter applies to a claim against a public agency arising from an action of its employee or a volunteer under its direction involving 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.

Negligence is not the standard. A claimant must identify a statute or ordinance the action violated. A dispatcher who was careless, who misheard an address, or who prioritised calls badly is not liable under this chapter unless a specific enactment was breached.

The reason is the volume and conditions of the work. Emergency dispatch means rapid decisions on incomplete information from callers in distress, many times a shift. Judging each by hindsight negligence would make the service uninsurable.

"9-1-1 service" and "public agency" take their meanings from Chapter 771 of the Health and Safety Code, which governs emergency communication districts — so the terms are defined by the regulatory scheme rather than here.

Volunteers under the agency's direction are covered, which matters because the Act's definition of "employee" requires paid service. Without this, a volunteer's conduct would fall outside the chapter entirely.

The section sits alongside the emergency response exclusion, which protects the units that respond. This one protects the agency that takes the call.