WILL WI&ON 

.--- ~ENERAX. 

.,. 

Honorabla Henry iad. 

+j.strlct ~Attorney 

Dallas, Texas 

August 1, 1957 

Opinion N6. W-112 

Ret The llablJky~.of the Dallas 

County l@.pltal Metrlct for 

nsgllg.nt:'~aots 0r its~ employebs.and~.tb *uthority.to. pur-' 

chase public llablllty in;. 

suranoe i

You han:mabmltt.d for our cawideratloa certain uestlons catcerning th..operatlon of the Dal&. County Horplta P 

Dl.tPl&t.~ Th.~.fir.t..lnvolv.. the llabllltf~~of tbe'hoepltal dla- 

. IxLot for ~in~urles2e.ulting from the wgllgent~~otr or:aalprao- 

.ttau i%lt. ,mgentl, br.aploy.88. 

~Th. Dalla. Coonti Hoepltal-Qieiklot was araated under 

the.aukhorlty.oS Seat1011 4 oi.Art1al.r I&M the Texas Canatltutlon in themuner pravid8d bp,We Tezu%eglulature ln 4rtlcle 

44!h, Veraon' Civil 6tatuter.. .Tbr~ho8pltaldlatrl8t 1.r 88- 

tabllehed bp an ~leatl~4nlt$gtqd'.ifher by a petltlco. of 100 

reeidelft quallfled p.rop&ty~ta%pay$~~ voterror by a motion of 

--the'~Oara\i.&o!iers'~ C@urti::. Ofiq., .rtr8ate,d ~Xhe..hospltal district 

m+rroUw.kithar~ county;of clty+&iity lbpitrl dlstrlcte'. ., The 

:.' dlsttiiot: hae'.th. ,pwer .oS tmtlm to' #mutent of‘seventy- 

:flve oedts.per on. hundred dollar valuation eucbtax to be levled.by the ;Count$ Taz-Assessor Colleotor. a&oollected ln~the. 

‘~.stie. mauuer. aa~aouuty~tuee. .The Coiml8eloners~ Court of the 

:Q0&~h~si~th~.~poif.r ta~lssu~ and~'iill.~obllgatl~ns of. the hos; 

'pltal3litzlct for cwrtruatl*, 'purchare, or enlargement ,of: a 

ho&ta1,or,hospltal~.ystei, after an election authorlalng: suoh 

. ., ', 

The Board of Msnigere'6i the.hospltal district l@ ap1 

olnted by the Commla.lon.rs I-Court of the aounty their dutler 

ring to manage, control aud-admlnlster the hosplgal systei of 

the, hosplt8l di.rtrlctu ,Tlu statute 8p8altiaally provld.8 that 

the Board of,Managers ahall-&av..th. parer to mi. and be sued. 

Zhaddltlo~ .fh. hO8plttaf.~dilrtrlat 1. g1V.n thi right and.~pwe,r 

of eminent &aul+ 

The mcordr of hoepltal districts organized under this 

statute are subject to inspection by the 8tate Department of 
Honora& Henry Wade, page 2 (Ww-112) 

Health and the Commissioners1 Cotirt of the county, and the appropriate prosecuting attorney for the county Is charged with 

the duty of representing the hospital district in all legal 

rmatters. 

There Is little doubt but that a hospital district 

created under the provlslons of this statute is a governmental 

entity..., Because of the vieu we take as to the nature of Its 

purpose irhd operation, It is unnecessary foti.ua to ~detexmlue~ 

Its ‘exact nature. The courts of Texas have consistently held 

that the furnishing of hospital services by a munlcipallty ,or 

county c?nrtltutes a governmental function. Gltv of wv. 

-,~..107~ fi.W.2d 872 (Tex.Comm.App. 1937). Gartman v. Cltv of 

&&&~Q,...,IXJ~ S.%2d 879 (Tex.Comm.App. 1935). Since the actlvity of operatlng a public hospital of this-type is a governmental actavlty, no llablllty will attaoh for the neglluent 

acts.of the servauts or e111ploy8es of a hospital district, (41 

C. J.S. Hospitals Section 8, Annotation 25 A.L.B.2d 203); m 

a Falls ‘(I. Bob-, ,121 Tax. 133, 46 8.U.2d 965 

of Dallas v. @&$&, supra; &&man v. Cltv of QThe~ef&e; we conclude that the Dallas County Hospltal District, being engaged in a governmental function only, 

la not liable for the negligent acts or malpractice oi Its 

agents or employees. 

Your second question asks whether, ii our answer to’ 

the flrst question doer not lmpose*llablllty on the hospital 

di&rlct, the hospital district, has authority to Issue a voucher ln paymu+ of preniums on pub&? 1labIlIty lneuranoe wllCl8S i 

Bectlou 52 or Article III or the Teucas Constitution 

governs this question, ad reads as follows8 . ? 

“The Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county city, town or other political 

corporattin or sub&vision of the State to lend 

Its credit or to gr*t public money or thing of 

value in aid of, or to any lndlvldual~ aasoclatlon or corporation whatsoever’, . . . ’ 
Honorable Henry Uade, page 3 (WI+112) 

This office has consistently held, and prdperly so, 

that the Commlssloners I Court of a county does not have authority to purchase public llablllty insurance covering the 

operation of governmental functions in which the county would 

not be liable for the ‘negligent acts of its servants. 

lons S-55, v-763, O-1922 and O-5567. We think these ho%& 

apply to your inquiry. You are, therefore, advised that the 

Board of Managers of the Dallas County Eospltal Mstrlot does 

not have authority to purchase public liability insurance coverage on the oper&lons of the &strict. - 

The personal views of the Attorney Oenerel on this 

subject are expressed in a dissent to nett 

Mstrlct, 153 Tax. 599, 272 S.W.2d 49 954) 

v. Brown Counte 

. 

‘We exprese our appreciation to Assistant District 

Attorney John Webster for his able brief which uas mart helpful 

to our ofrlce * the preparation or this oplnlon. 

The Poller County Hospital District 1s not lleble for the negligent act8 or malpractice of its 

agents or employees. The Hoapltal Dletrlot cannot 

legally purchase llablllty insurance. ~ovarlng~lts 

operations. 

tion. 

8ectlon 52, ,Artlole XII, Texas Constltu- 

.:‘,:’ 

JHH:staub 

8; Oredy Chtidlir , Chalrmaa 

Y. V. Geppert . 

. Wellace Finfrock ‘ 

B. H. Tlmmlns, Jr. 

RRVIEYBO FOR Ta ATTORNBY ORNRRAL 

BY: &o; P. Blackburn 

. .