an officer attempts to traverse when responding to an emergency is' potentially a “blind intersection.” That is why the statute provides that an emergency vehicle may proceed through a stop light after “slowing as necessary.” See Tex Transp. Code Ann. § 546.001(2). The undisputed evidence shows that [the officer] followed those procedures. Id. at 100. The differences between Kuhn and this case are controlling. First, failure to activate a patrol car’s emergency lights and siren can raise a fact issue about whether the officer was driving recklessly. Compare id. (relying on use of lights and siren as proof to refute recklessness) with Galveston Cty. Health Dist. v. Hanley, No. 01-14-00166-CV, 2014 WL 6853608, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December 4, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, use of lights and a siren has
holding facts suggesting officer did not use siren created fact issue for recklessness holding that an adverse party must state specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of fact for trial holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship holding that use of annual salary rate created fact issue as to whether the employment contract was atwill or for a specific term