On April 24, 2018, off-duty Dallas Police Officer Chad Seward, working as a security guard for Home Depot, responded to a report from Home Depot about suspicious behavior. A store employee, Scott Painter, observed Armando Juarez concealing items in a bucket and hiding in the store, leading Seward to intervene. Seward detained Juarez.
“As they were walking, Seward grabbed Juarez’s arm, exclaiming to the others that there was ‘Mace on his belt loop,’ and Juarez fell to his knees and ultimately into a fetal position. Juarez was asked if he had anything in his pockets, and when he responded affirmatively, the can of Mace and his wallet were confiscated. Juarez then gave Seward permission to go through his wallet, which contained a thin card-shaped piece of metal with a blade diagonally across it. The Mace, the blade, and the fact that they were ‘going to an area where we’re going to be confined’ prompted Seward to conduct a protective frisk. But because he was not arresting Juarez, Seward frisked only the outer clothing, feeling ‘unidentifiable objects’ in the pockets but nothing like a weapon. However, [a store employee], who was walking in the front of the group, testified that he never observed Juarez getting searched.”
Seward called for backup after discovering a soundalike name on an outstanding warrant. When on-duty officers Rogelio Santander Jr. and Crystal Almeida arrived, Juarez — unrestrained — pulled out concealed gun and shot them, killing Santander and severely injuring Almeida and the store employee. Juarez ultimately pleaded guilty to capital murder of a peace officer and received a life sentence without parole.
Santander’s parents and Almeida sued Seward, Home Depot, and Point 2 Point Global Security (Seward’s employer), alleging negligence and vicarious liability. The trial court dismissed the claim against Seward under the Texas Tort Claims Act, ruling he acted within his governmental employment, and granted summary judgment for Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security. The Court of Appeals partially reversed, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review to address two key issues: (1) whether Seward’s conduct fell within his police duties, entitling him to immunity, and (2) whether to adopt the “public-safety officer’s rule,” limiting duties owed to responding officers.
The Texas Supreme Court held that Seward was acting within his police duties when he detained Juarez. Under Texas law, officers must intervene to prevent crimes, even off-duty. Seward had reasonable suspicion Juarez was shoplifting, triggering his statutory duty to act. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that Seward was merely enforcing Home Depot policies, emphasizing that his actions — issuing a trespass warning and checking warrants — were law enforcement activities.
Because Seward’s conduct was within his governmental employment, the Tort Claims Act mandated dismissal of claims against him.
The Court also adopted the public-safety officer’s rule, joining the majority of jurisdictions. This rule limits duties owed to officers injured by the same negligence that necessitated their response. The Court grounded the rule in public policy: encouraging citizens to call for help without fear of liability, ensuring officers’ training covers inherent risks, and avoiding conflicts of interest. The rule bars recovery for injuries caused by the peril officers were summoned to address but preserves duties to warn of known, hidden dangers unknown to officers. Applying the rule, the Court found Home Depot had no duty to warn Santander and Almeida about Juarez’s concealed weapon because the risk of armed suspects is inherent to police work. Painter’s suspicion that Juarez might be armed did not equate to knowledge of a hidden danger requiring a warning.
The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, dismissing all claims against Seward, Home Depot, and Point 2 Point Global Security.
Seward v. Santander, 2025 Tex. LEXIS 381 * (Tx. 2025).