Court Opinion

ID: 9654225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:10:49.239539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:07.081197
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Garwood
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The City automobile in question was acquired for and dedicated to the admittedly governmental function of milk inspection. The automobile repair garage which the City conducted was admittedly a nongovernmental affair. But when the milk inspector is driving the car toward the garage in order to get it repaired, he is not repairing the car or furthering the activity of the city garage. He is doing something incidental to his work of milk inspector. If the City had sent out its garage employee to take possession of the car and drive it to Houston for repairs, the situation might be different, but as it was, the milk inspector no more engaged in the garage end of the City business than any lawyer engages in the garage business when he undertakes to drive his car to the repair shop. The point may be clearer from reversing the situation. Let us suppose that a garage employee, having finished repairing a garbage truck, is driving it to a point where the garbage collector will take it over and proceed to collect garbage. Surely the garage employee is not engaged in the governmental activity of garbage collection.
I think the judgment against the City should be reversed.
Opinion delivered March 23, 1955.
Rehearing denied April 27, 1955.