the [defendants] were a proximate cause of the accident. 843 S.W.2d at 148 (citations omitted). Based on this record, the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that they were not negligent as a matter of law. II. Official Immunity for State Law Claims O n.Ct.App.1993) (“In one sense, much of a police officer’s conduct involved [sic] discretion. An officer must continuously choose between warnings and arrests. He must decide whether a minor problem should be passed up in order to concentrate on a more serious one. He must decide which vehicles to signal and what form of signal to give. Discretion is a constant factor in a police officer’s day.”) (quoting Simon v. Heald, 359 A.2d 666, 668 (Del.Super.Ct.1976)); Bachmann v. Welby, 860 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Mo.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Chambers contends that a Texas statute
holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the incriminating nature of a gun was apparent when officers were responding to charges that the defendants were holding aliens against their will holding that officers decision regarding route and speed to travel in responding to allpoints bulletin was discretionary holding that an officers conduct fell outside time and space limits where he was offduty on the date in question and not responding to an emergency holding that officers release of police dog to assist in arrest was discretionary act holding that decision to operate lighthouse is discretionary decision while failure to maintain lighthouse is not within discretionary function exception