### ' EATTOKNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

December 19, 1951

Han*Homer Garrison, Jr+, Director Texas Department of Public Safety Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-l 380 Re: Applicability of Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, House Bill 219, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, (Article 67Olh. V&S,) to operators ofpublicDear Colonel Garrison: ly ownedmotor vehicles.

Your request 

### for an opinion in connection with the abovecaptioned matter states: .. “Reference is made to Section 33, Article VI, H-B. No. 219, 52nd Texas Legislature, the ‘Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act.’ “The first portion of Section 33 of the Act referred to provides : ” ‘This Act shall not apply with respect to any 

### motor $ehicle owned bythe United States, the State ofTexas or any pc@ical subdivision of this state or municipality therein; * * *‘, “H.B1 219, in effect, provides that under certain conditions (an accident involving property damage of a certain sum, under certain conditions, andupon conviction of certain offenses) the operator or owner of the motor vehicle involved shall be required to furnish proof of financial responsibility. Ifproof of financial responsibility is not,furnished within the required time the Department is required to suspend ’ the license ofthe operator andthe registration of the owner ofthe motor vehicle involved ‘inthe acci-, dent,Hon, Homer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (V-1380)

“Let us 

### assume that

### a motor vehicle owned by the State of Texas, or apolitical subdivision of the State, or a municipality within the State is involved in an

‘accident inwhich somuona is killed, or s,erlously injured’,or inwhich thaw is gr,eatproperty damage* 

### Under the excepUons referred to we cannot suspend the registration onthe vbhicle involved. Would the operator of the vahiele referred to above be required to furnish proof of financial responsibility within the period 

### provided by law? Ifyour answer is yes, 

### and such proof is net furnished, are we required to revoke his drtvere license and suspend the registration on all motor vehicles pcrsonally owned by

### him? “Also let us assum,a that 

### the operator of a ctty garbage truck is convicted of d,riving a city truck on a public street while intoxicated, or failure to stop end render aid, or some other offense for which hia.litense to operate ,amotor veh~ek must be suspended or revoked, andsaid 

### truck driver does-not then give 

### end thereafter&aintain proof of financiai rasponcib,Uitywith respect to all vehicles registered by him as an individual, should the registration onmotor vehicles privately ownedby him be suspended? Could 

### he register s newvehicle without furnishing proof of fhencisl responsibility? (See See, 17 ofthe Act.) Wfftcere of polfttcal subdfvisioar of the state are 

### asking us aboutthe status of their drivers under the Act. 

### Wehave told 

### th+m that there ham been nQcourt opinions onthe newly 

### enbckrd,iaw and that we are 

### asking you for ea opinion onthu matter,”
You prcrent for 

### our determination two questions, as follows: 

### 1. 1sthe operator of a motor vehicle ownedby the United States, the State of 

### Texas. a political subdivision of the State or amunicipality of the State, required to furnish proof of financial responsibility under the provisions of House BUl 219, Actr 52nd Leg., R,S, 1951. ch, 498, p. 1210 (Article 6701h, V,C&)? 

### 2. ;ttthe above 

### question is answered inthe afffrrnetive. then ir the Department of Public Safety, inthe event of an accident by the operator of a publicly.

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 3 (V-1380)

owned vehicle under the conditions set out inthe act, required to revoke the operator’s driver’s license and suspend the registration of his privately owned vehicles 7 Article 6701h, V.C.S., the “Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-’ Responsibility Act” (H.B. 219. Acts 52nd Leg., H.S. 1951, ch. 498, p, 1210) is designed to compel owners and drivers ofmotor vehicles to maintain ability to satisfy claims for injury anddamage orising out of accidents involving motor vehicles. Financial responsibility is nowhere required absolutely by the act, butis 

### merely a condition to the continued privilege to drive or 

### use a vehicle under certain circumstances. Ability to satisfy claims may be established under various circumstances by several methods, including maintenance of insurance against such claims, payment, or discharge from or satisfaction of such claims in designated ways andwithin the time specified,

Section 33 ofthe act provides inpa@ as follows: “This Act shall not apply with respect to any motor vehicle owned bythe United States, the State of Texas or any political subdivision of this State :,, or any municipality therein;

. . .” You have correctly stated that the question presented with reference to the above quoted provision has not been answered by the courts of this State. Onthe other hand, this question has been decided 

### by the Supreme 

### Court of Minnesota in City of St.Paul v. Hoffman, 25 N.W.2d 661 (Mina Sup. 1946). under aprovision of the laws ofthat State, which, in so far as pertinent here, is in almost the identical language as Section 33 of 

### our act. There itwas contended that the provisioru 

### ofthe Minnesota act providing that it Udoesnot apply with rempectto any motor vehicle owned and operated by the United States, this State or any political subdivision ofthis State or any municipality therein” did not have the effect of exempting from the provisions ofthe drivers’ responsibility law an operator of a city-owned vehicle,. The court in refusing such a construction said:

“The controversy here arises over the proper construction ofMinn. St. 1945 and M.S.A. 5 170.51, which is L. 1945, c. 285 g 31, and reads as follows:

‘Sec. 31. This act does not apply with respect to any motor vehicle owned and operated by the UnitedHon. Homer Garrison, Jr,, page 4 (V-1380)

States, this state or any political subdivision ofthis state or any munirtpality therein.’ .I

. . .

“It is the contention ofthe city that its drivers are by virtue ofthe quotedsection exempt from the provisions ofthe safety responsibility act, The state very earnestly contends that ths act applies to such drivers andthat the commissioner may ,auapelPd thair drivers’ licenses as inthe case of other drivers.

“Just how 6 31 came into L. 1945, c. 285, is not disclosed by legislative history. The Minnesota State Bar Association, as amicus curiae, states in its brief thatthe law as enacted is inthe exact form proposed by its committee, and it earnestly contends that drivers of city vehicles are not excluded from the act. We must interpret the language 

### as itwas enacted ‘bythe legislature, andwe cannot accept the 

### authors ’ construction of its import unless that construction Is consistent with the legislative intent as evidenced by the language ussd. Taking the act as 

### awhole, we 

### candiscover nopurpose in f 31 except to exempt the city’s drivers from suspension of their licenses under the operatton 

### ofthe act, Since the act operates exclusively by suspension of licenses to operate motor vehicles andnot against the vehicles themselves, the exclusion ofthe city’s vehicles from the application ofthe act must have been intended to exempt the city’s drivers. The purpose ofthe act~was to effect financial responsibility to injured persons. The city is liable 

### for injuries inflicted by negligent acts performed inthe disch8rge of 

### its corporate 

### or proprietary functiona. Boye Y. Ctty of Albert Lea, 74 Miun. 230. 76 N.W. 1131; Freeman v. City ofMinneapolis, 219 Mtnn. 202, 17 N.W. 2d 364. Incases involving the proprietary functions of citiee, itwould,ba futile 

### to require additional s’eturity to the public. City employes are personally liable for their negligence when engaged 

### in theperformance ofthe city’s governmental functions. Florio v. Jersey City, 101 N.J.L. 535, 129 A. 470, 40 A.L.R. 1353. and **annotdoa;** Miller v. Joe&es,224 N.C. 783, 32 S.E.Zd 594. The city is authorized by statute, butnot required, to cover its employes against liability in such cases. Minn. St. 1945 and M.S.A. fg 471.42. 471.43. B seems qutte obvious to ASHon. Homer Garrison, Jr,,, page 5 (V-1380)

that fi31was inaerted inthe act to relieve municipalities, andothers that are exempted, from embarrassment inthe performance oftheir functions by finding the discharge of such functtona hampered by the:lack of licensed drivers. “Xfthelew is to complete&y‘achieve ite avowed pnrpoaea, the legialetute couN:either waive gevernmental immunity from suit in negligence cases as the United Stetea has dons inthe Federal Tort Claims Act, Public Law,6Ol,.Title N, 79th 

### CMylreaa, 28 U.&CA. 8 921,which the Lcgialature tou&ddo 

### not only inbehalf ofths atebebut of cities andother governmental aubdivisions, or it could require such municipalities or subdivisions to cover their drivers with insurance. We tbarefore hold thatthe trial court -was right in holding the drivers of vehiclaa owned and operated by the city exempt from the

### proviabna ofthe act.” (Emphasis added.) The 

### above decision 

### ia the only one we have been ebla to find conatruing such a provision in a drivers’ reaponaibility act, end in view ofthe fact that the Texas act, as well as that

### of‘Minnesota, was modeled after the Uniform Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, we feel compelled to follow the above conatructton. The Attorney General of California has reached a similer conclusion, See Att’y Gea. Op. 48/205 (Cal. 1949).

You are, therefore, advised thatthe 

### operetor of e

### motor vehicle 

### owned by the United States, the State of Texas, apolitical subdivision ofthe State or a municipality 

### ofthe State is exempt from the provisions 

### ofArticle 67Olh. V.C.S., while lawfully engaged **1~** the operation of such publicly owned vehicle,

Our answer to your first question 

### makes unnecessary an answer 

### to.your second question,

SUMMARY Section 33 of Article 6701h, V.C.S.. the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act, providing that the “act shall not apply with respect to any motor
:

,“j.. .

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 6 (V-1380)

vehicle owned bythe United States, the State of Texas or anypolitical subdivision ofthis State or anymunicipality therein” has the effect of exempting from the provisions ofthe act the operator of a publicly owned vehicle while lawfully engaged inthe operation of such vehicle.

APPROVED: C. K, Richards Trial &Appellate Division Yours very truly, PRICE DAMLEL Attorney General

E. Jacobson Reviewing Assistant Price Daniel Attorney General By &g&.,&J 25. rr)d=w Charles I). Mathews Fwt Asatstant