Court Opinion

ID: 9683411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:28:12.609929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.636832
License: Public Domain

CHAVEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in the majority’s opinion affirming the summary judgment in favor of appellee Calhoun County Independent School District. Because I believe the trial court properly ruled that limitations bar any claim against appellee Kana, I concur in the summary judgment in her favor. However, I would reverse the summary judgment with regard to appellee Collins. I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority’s opinion holding that school officials may not waive their immunity by negligently failing to discipline.
The claim in this case arose within the context of student discipline. The petition alleged that the school officials were negligent in failing to discipline Archangel, and that this negligent failure to discipline resulted in bodily harm to Hall. The general meaning of “negligence” includes both acts and omissions that are contrary to what would be expected of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. Blace’s Law DICTIONARY 1032 (6th ed. 1990). In the context of this ease, I believe immunity should be waived for a negligent failure to discipline to the same extent as for a negligent act of discipline. It would be a misreading of Barr to limit the exception to immunity to negligent acts only. In its discussion of the waiver provision, Barr specifically acknowledged that “negligence occurs as a result of an act or omission by an individual.” Barr, 562 S.W.2d at 848.
I also do not agree that Hopkins precludes a waiver of immunity for negligent failure to discipline. In Hopkins, a child with cerebral palsy was pushed into a stack of chairs by other students and sustained a head injury. At that time, she was not taken for medical care. Later in the day her convulsions became severe, but she was not taken for medical treatment until she was passed into the custody of a day care center at the end of the school day. The alleged negligence of the school officials in Hopkins was not the negligent failure to discipline those who pushed the girl into the chairs, but the negligent failure to seek appropriate medical care for the girl while she was at school. Therefore, *501no issue pertaining to negligence in the context of student discipline was involved in the case. •
I would hold that fact issues exist concerning appellee Collins’s alleged negligent failure to discipline sufficient to preclude summary judgment of the wrongful death claim against him.
FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr. and YÁÑEZ, JJ., join in the dissent.