WPC8 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6Nh H#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6 ;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@ X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  P XP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P &P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2PXP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   2b8;,<Q-=-0 [.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman Regulard6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6Nh HH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6 ;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@ X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  P XP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P &P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2PXP& A`ArialTTX2883|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 961246ă & Willette L. Kolster, Petitioner  *v.ă City of El Paso, Respondent   On Application for Writ of Error to the ! Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texasă  l Argued on October 9, 1997 ă Justice Enoch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Gonzalez, Justice   Baker, Justice Abbott, and Justice Hankinson join. Chief Justice Phillips and Justice Spector concur in the judgment only. Justice Hecht filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Owen joined. As we explained today in City of Amarillo v. Martin,b#A\  PP#э___ S.W.2d ___ (Tex. 1998).b to recover damages resulting from the emergency operation of an emergency vehicle, a plaintiff must show that the operator has committed an act that the operator knew or should have known posed a high degree of risk of serious injury"in other words, that the operator has acted recklessly. We granted writ of error in this case because, like Martin, it presented the question of how culpable a municipal employees acts must be in operating an emergency vehicle in an emergency situation before a municipality should answer in damages for injury caused by the employee. As in Martin, the trial court in this case erroneously determined that negligence was the correct standard. Unlike the City of Amarillo inMartin, however, the City of El Paso here did not object to the jury charge on grounds that negligence was not the correct standard. Likewise, neither the Citys motion for directed verdict nor its motion for judgment non obstante veredicto raised this issue. Willette Kolster argues that the court of appeals erred in holding that she did not raise a fact issue regarding the negligence of ambulance driver Dawn Sloan. Because the City did not preserve error on the question of what standard of culpability the trial court should have applied to Sloans actions, we are bound to review Kolsters challenge under the standard submitted to the jury"simple negligence.#A\  PP#эSee Sage Street Assoc. v. Northdale Constr. Co., 863 S.W.2d 438, 447 (Tex. 1993); Larson v. Cook Consultants, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tex. 1985). Therefore, we must address only one question: whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Kolster presented no evidence raising a fact issue regarding whether Sloan operated her ambulance negligently while responding to an emergency call.[#A\  PP#э931 S.W.2d 365, 370.[ Kolsters claim for recovery based on a finding of negligence survives a no evidence review. Uncontroverted evidence showed that Sloan was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident, in violation of a restriction on her drivers license. Sloan did introduce evidence showing that she does not need glasses for driving. Further, she testified that she was not given a vision test when she received the license that she held at the time of the accident. But, Sergeant James Moorman, a twentyyear veteran of the Department of Public Safety and director of an El Paso drivers license office, testified that a vision test is always given to drivers license applicants to determine whether the applicant has 20/40 vision without corrective lenses, and he confirmed that the purpose of the vision test is to ascertain whether the applicant can drive safely without corrective lenses. In light of the contradictory evidence, we cannot conclude that no evidence supports the jurys finding that Sloan was negligent. Kolster also asserted that Sloans failure to wear glasses was negligence per se.#A\  PP#эSee Tex. Transp. Code  521.221(c) (driving a motor vehicle in violation of a license restriction is a misdemeanor criminal offense). We have held that the unexcused violation of an ordinance could constitute negligence as a matter of law if the ordinance was designed to prevent injury to the class of persons to which the injured party belongs.#A\  PP#эSee El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 312 (Tex. 1987). Because we conclude that Kolster otherwise produced some evidence of negligence in this case, we need not reach the negligence per se issue. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court to render judgment in accordance with this opinion. ` ` ` hhh_________________________ ` ` ` hhhCraig T. Enoch ` ` ` hhhJustice Opinion delivered: June 5, 1998