Opinion ID: 181736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Torts Falling Under the Tort Claims Act

Text: CHRISTUS contends that the district court erred when it held that statutory claims may never fall under the Tort Claims Act, and argues that Texas courts have long applied the Act to various statutory causes of action. Rodriguez argues that the waiver granted to hospital district management contractors should be extremely limitedapplying to common law torts only; to read it otherwise would essentially make these contractors a part of the government. However, the statute itself and the case law do not support her argument. The Tort Claims Act itself contains no language limiting its scope to common law torts. Instead, the Act's limited waiver allows for certain actions for which a person would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law,  not Texas common law. [10] Also, the Texas Legislature placed it in Title 4 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, entitled Liability in Tort, which codifies, or makes statutory, many traditional common law torts, such as LibelChapter 73, TrespassChapter 80, and Products LiabilityChapter 82. And, the Legislature clearly contemplated the interplay of statutory torts with the Tort Claims Act. For example, in Chapter 74the Medical Liability Act, the Legislature provided that in the event of a conflict between this chapter and Section 101.023, 102.003, or 108.002, those sections of this code control to the extent of the conflict, [11] and specified that [t]his chapter does not waive sovereign immunity from suit or from liability. [12] Nor does the plain language of § 285.072 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, conveying governmental immunity to hospital district management contractors, limit immunity to common law torts alone. [13] The Texas Supreme Court has held that causes of action based on statutes containing their own waiver of immunity do not fall under the Act. [14] However, the Texas Supreme Court has never barred all statutory claims from falling under the Tort Claims Act. And, subsequent cases from the state courts of appeals have followed the pattern of distinguishing claims based on statutes containing independent waivers of immunity. [15] Further, Texas courts treat statutory torts like common law torts absent some conflicting statutory provisions. [16] We are, therefore, persuaded that statutory claims may fall under the Tort Claims Act provided (1) they are tort claims, and (2) they do not contain independent waivers of sovereign immunity, and we analyze Rodriguez's claims accordingly. It should be understood that the Tort Claims Act does not create a cause of action; it merely waives sovereign immunity as a bar to a suit that would otherwise exist. [17] Claims brought under the Tort Claims Act must first be claims based on a viable theory of tort liability. So, the phrase brought under the Tort Claims Act is merely shorthand for the fact that the government may not be sued in tort unless a separate, viable tort fits within the limited waiver provided by the Act. Therefore, the question becomes whether Rodriguez's statutory claims sound in tort, and, if so, whether they contain an independent waiver of immunity. The Tort Claims Act does not define tort, so we apply its commonly accepted meaning. Tort liability depends on both the existence and violation of a duty. [18] Statutes may create duties on which tort liability is premised. [19] Not all statutory claims sound in tort, so the court must examine each claim to determine its basis. The precise nature of the claim is ordinarily identified by examining the damages alleged: when the damages are purely economic, the claim sounds in contract, but a... claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort. [20]