or judgment ... but where the act to be done involves the exercise of discretion or judgment, it is not to be deemed merely ministerial. Rains v. Simpson, 50 Tex. 495, 501 (1878) (quoting Commissioner of the General Land Office v. Smith, 5 Tex. 471, 479 (1849)). If an action involves personal deliberation, decision and judgment, it is discretionary; actions which require obedience to orders or the performance of a duty to which the actor has no choice, are ministerial. Wyse, 733 S.W.2d at 227. Whether a police officer operating a vehicle in the scope of the officer’s authority is performing a discretionary or ministerial act is an issue on which Texas courts have reached divergent conclusions. Compare Eubanks v. Wood, 304 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>) and Huddleston v. Maurry, 841 S.W.2d 24, 29
recognizing emergency exception holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent holding that district court has discretion to determine whether it could reasonably be said that an emergency exists holding that an officers response to an emergency call does not involve matters within his discretion as an officer holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment