**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
**GROVERSELLERS ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL**

Honorable C. C. Randle 3* .-- County Attorney ! i Ellis County 1 \ Waxahachle, Texas \ : /-1; 4 Dear Sir: A:tentlonr Mr. F. L. ~~ZSOZI ‘,. Assistant Countye&ttorney --_. Opinion Ro. O-6182 "\ '\,*>,:' Fl0: Use of School bus

.‘fmextra- %’ curricular activities, and related. queq;lpns. i

1” .F.. .~ Reference lJ.made to your letter of August 28, 1944, which Is as,,folJowsr

~.. -,L+Q "We vi11 appreciite your opinion,
‘

.. ‘

. !

“1. *‘Dothe members of the sohool board,welther officially or personally, have any llablllty for operation of sohool buses on extra-curricular activities, such as athletlc trips,otc? \ I

, '~._. “2. Does the bus driver’s statutory bond apply whenthe bus Is being driven on mlssfons~described In question above?

‘*,“T. Could the school board legally buy, from non-tax funds, llablllty andproperty damageInsurance protecting the school board and the bus drivers against its liability arlslng from outside activities menr.loned In Question So. l?”Ron. C. C. Randle - Page 2
It Is veil settled that aschool district Is not llnble for the torts of Its agents or employees vhloh are consultted in the performance of **a**governmental function.

School trusteis **are** vested under our laws with broad powers In the control andmanagementof schools. They are oharged with the promotion of eduuatlon vlthin their respective dlstrlots, andin the sbaenac of statutory llmltatlons they 

### are vested vlth large dlscrotion In thr exrrciro of their povorr of admlnlstratlon. state Line School Distriut va, Fame11 School DIstrIct, 

### 489. ii. 

### (2)616.

It Is recognized generally in this State that athletic oontests, interscholastic league meetlngs, andother extra-curricular activities havebecome anecessary and lntegral part of our educational system, Theplena for modern school plants have been designed vith the vlev of providing proper faollitles for the furtherance of this program. Theuse of a school bus in aid of these aotivltles has been deemed essentlal,ln manyinstance8, to equallre the opportunltlea of pupils who, In the absence of such use, oould not participate.

It follows that the use of a school bus **under** such circumstances is but the performsme of agovernmental function, andin the absence of an abuse of discretion on the part of the trustees, they are not legally personally liable for the operation of the bus.

Thebond executed by the school bus driver In accordanoe with the provlslons of Art1018 26878, V. A. C. S., 1s madefor the benefit of the children to be transported. Robinson v. Draper, 

### 133Tex. 280, 127 S. W. (2) 181. The statutory bond of the bus driver would apply vhan the bus Is being driven on euch mlsslon provided the driver’s contract with the school board, andonwhich the bond is based, obllgates himto drive the bus on these ocaasions.

In response to your third question, this is to advise that this department has held in Opinion No. O-1418 that public funds could not be used to pay premiums on insurance policies covering school busses for the protection of third parLies against damages for which Lheschool district itself could not be held liable. Weconcur in such holding, and are of the opinion that this includes anypublic fund, vhkhsr it be tax or non-cnx,

## 804

Bon. C. C. Randlo - Page 

### 3

desired. We trust that this gives you the information

YOUrI' VOW tNlg

JWRrBT