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 County e&ttorney 

--_. 

Opinion Ro. O-6182 "\ '\,*>,:' 

Fl0: Use of School bus .‘fm extra- %’ 

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. *‘Do the 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 when the bus Is being driven on 

mlssfons~described In question above? 

‘*,“T. Could the school board legally 

buy, from non-tax funds, llablllty and property 

damage Insurance 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 a school 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 and management of schools. They 

are oharged with the promotion of eduuatlon vlthin their respective dlstrlots, and in 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, 48 9. ii. (2) 616. 

It Is recognized generally in this State that 

athletic oontests, interscholastic league meetlngs, and other 

extra-curricular activities have become a necessary and lntegral part of our educational system, The plena for modern 

school plants have been designed vith the vlev of providing 

proper faollitles for the furtherance of this program. The use 

of a school bus in aid of these aotivltles has been deemed 

essentlal,ln many instance8, 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 a governmental 

function, and in 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. 

The bond executed by the school bus driver In 

accordanoe with the provlslons of Art1018 26878, V. A. C. S., 

1s made for the benefit of the children to be transported. 

Robinson v. Draper, 133 Tex. 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, and on which the bond is based, obllgates him to 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 Lhe school district itself 

could not be held liable. We concur in such holding, and are of 

the opinion that this includes any public 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