Court Opinion

ID: 9827740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:48:54.623192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.586892
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant in her motion for rehearing insists that this court, in affirming the case at bar, is in direct conflict with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas in the case of Pearce v. Hallum, 30 S.W.(2d) 399, in which cáse the Supreme Court refused a writ of error. We were not unmindful of that case at the time we wrote the original opinion. If Judge Looney, who wrote the opinion in the Pearce v. Hallum Case, intended to hold that a municipal corporation is liable for the death of a person caused by its servants, agents, or employees while engaged in strictly governmental functions, then we are of the opinion that said holding is in direct conflict with the case of Barnes v. City of Waco, 262 S. W. 1081 (error refused) by this court, and Adkinson v. City of Port Arthur (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S. W. 191 (error refused) by the court at Beaumont, and Hooper v. City of Childress (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W.(2d) 907, by the court at Amarillo. Judge Looney in the Pearce v. Hallum Case did not refer to the provisions of article 4672 which specifically states that article 4671 does not apply unless the deceased, if he had lived, would have had a cause of action which he could have maintained for the injury. When articles 4671 and 4672 of the Revised Statutes áre construed together, we think it was the clear intention of the Legislature not to make municipal corporations liable for the acts of its employees when engaged in strictly governmental -functions. Said articles were readopted in 1925 after the opinion was rendered in the case of Barnes v. City of Waco, supra, .and, under the well-recognized rule of construction, the Legislature must have intended said statutes to be construed as they were in said case. Said statutes as re-enacted in 1925 are in practically the same language as they were under the amendment of 1921.
We have carefully examined appéllant’s motion for rehearing, and same is overruled.