Opinion ID: 6108756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Entities

Text: I agree with the Court that by enacting section 452.056, the Legislature did not attempt to grant private contractors immunity from damages. Rather, it attempted to limit the extent of their liability. Ante at 841-42. Rodriguez does not challenge the Legislature's authority to limit the liability of MTI and MTA, but she asserts that nothing in the language of section 452.056 limits her potential recovery from the three entities involved-FWTA, MTA, and MTI-to a cumulative total of $100,000. The Court concludes otherwise. It says that because of the statute, the liability of independent contractors performing essential governmental functions is limited to a single damages cap under the TTCA. Ante at 845. However, the statutory text does not support that conclusion. The Court looks to the functions performed by MTA and MTI and concludes that they acted jointly in operating the public transportation system. The Court then concludes that the damages cap applies cumulatively because FWTA's liability would be limited to $100,000 if it had performed all of the functions necessary to operate the transportation system, including those performed by MTA, MTI, and their employees. And while the Court may be correct regarding the extent of FWTA's liability if it itself had performed all the activities relevant to Rodriguez's claim, section 452.056 does not limit the liability of individual independent contractors, such as MTA and MTI, based on the functions they contracted to perform. Although the language of the statute limits a private operator's liability when it performs a function of an authority, the limit applies to  an independent contractor. TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 452.056(d) (emphasis added). MTA is an independent contractor performing functions of FWTA. So is MTI. Applying the statute to each as  an independent contractor yields the result that each is liable for damages to the extent FWTA would be liable had it performed the function. Nothing in the statute provides  that if multiple private operators have contracted with an authority, then either their functions must be considered to determine whether those functions are joint or the total of their liabilities is in any way combined. The Court concludes that the Legislature has instructed that, for the purpose of liability, an independent contractor performing the function of an authority ... should be treated as if it were the governmental unit performing that function. Ante at 846. Contrary to the Court's statement, though, nothing in the language of section 452.056(d) either explicitly or implicitly instructs that such an independent contractor should be treated as a governmental entity. In construing statutes, we strive to give effect to the Legislature's intent, looking for that intent first and foremost in the plain language of the statute. Lippincott v. Whisenhunt , 462 S.W.3d 507 , 509 (Tex. 2015). In subsection 452.056(d), the Legislature chose to limit the liability of private operators for damages only to the extent that a transportation authority would be liable. Nothing in the language of section 452.056 indicates the Legislature intended to extend full governmental status to private contractors. See id. at 508 (A court may not judicially amend a statute by adding words that are not contained in the language of the statute. Instead, it must apply the statute as written.). If the Legislature had so intended, it would, and should, have said so. Moreover, and to the exact contrary, the Legislature made clear that it was limiting the governmental attributes it extended to private operators by stating that a private operator is  not a public entity. TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 452.056(d) (emphasis added). The Court continues by concluding that applying the TTCA damages cap to each individual contractor would essentially multiply the cap and run counter to the Legislature's intent to limit the government's liability and encourage the use of independent contractors. Ante at 845. But as explained above, the Legislature explicitly chose not to treat private operators as governmental entities. TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 452.056(d). And limiting the liability of each individual contractor to $100,000, the amount for which FWTA could be liable under the TTCA, will still result in limited liability for FWTA. Moreover, there is nothing in this record hinting that limiting the liability of independent contractors to $100,000 each will discourage contractors from bidding on government contracts or discourage governmental entities from using contractors when appropriate. To the contrary, experience and common sense instruct otherwise. There is no shortage of independent contractors willing to bid on and perform government contracts. In Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Olivares , we recently considered whether to extend the protections of immunity to private contractors. 461 S.W.3d 117 , 122 (Tex. 2015). We explained that the rationale for and purpose supporting sovereign and governmental immunity is protection of the public fisc. Id. at 121-22 . We noted that such immunity guards against unforeseen expenditures associated with defending lawsuits and paying judgments and that private companies can and do manage their risk exposure by obtaining insurance. Id. at 121-23 . We concluded that [e]ven if holding a private party liable for its own improvident actions in performing a government contract indirectly leads to higher overall costs to government entities in engaging private contractors, those costs will be reflected in the negotiated contract price. Id. at 123 . Because extending immunity to the private contractor would not have furthered the purpose of immunity, we declined to do so. Id. at 124 .  In this case, we should follow the principles we expressed in Brown & Gay Engineering. While the Court concludes that section 452.056 does not attempt to extend full immunity to private contractors, it also concludes that it could not have been the Legislature's intent to allow a transportation authority's use of independent contractors to result in an increase in the amount of a recovery under the TTCA. Ante at 845. But applying the damages cap to MTA and MTI individually does not expand the liability of FWTA under the TTCA. It is one thing to protect governmental entities and the public fisc from judgments. It is another to limit the liability of a private party and thereby shift the burden of injury from the tortfeasor to the injured person just because the tortfeasor was performing a governmental function when it caused the injury. The organizational model of FWTA, MTA, and MTI as independent entities did not come about by happenstance. Indeed, it would blink reality to even think that the three entities, with their intricate divisions of responsibilities, liabilities, and relationships, were the result of other than careful planning and documentation. In some tangential way, the public fisc may be affected where private contractor tortfeasors can be sued by persons they injure because the contractor's bid price likely will include some amount for liability insurance premiums and related costs. See Brown & Gay Engineering , 461 S.W.3d at 122 . But where the liability of a governmental entity such as FWTA is limited regarding injuries caused by independent contractors such as MTI and MTA, both the purpose underlying governmental immunity-protection of the public fisc-and the purpose underlying the tort system-requiring wrongdoers to compensate those they have injured-are fulfilled. Moreover, private entities assume the risks of defending against, and potential liability for, tort claims on a daily basis. That is so whether they are performing governmental functions under contracts with the government or performing nongovernmental functions under contracts with private parties: it is part of doing business. Indeed, those risks are part of every nongovernmental entity's daily existence.