Court Opinion

ID: 9676939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:39:00.742506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:52.477859
License: Public Domain

DIAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree that the maintenance of streets is a proprietary function of a city. Turvey v. City of Houston, 602 S.W.2d 517, 518 (Tex.1980). I likewise agree that constructing and maintaining a particular storm sewer would also be a proprietary function. Dilley v. City of Houston, 148 Tex. 191, 222 S.W.2d 992, 995 (1949). But the adopting of a general plan of drainage and determining when, where and what size sewers shall be built is a governmental function. Id. 222 S.W.2d at 994.
Regulation of traffic is a governmental function of a city. City of Austin v. Daniels, 160 Tex. 628, 335 S.W.2d 753, 754 (1960). I believe the determination of whether a bridge or low water crossing should be built and when and where it is built is part of the governmental function of regulating traffic. There was no complaint that the construction or maintenance of the structure was defective.
The city is immune from liability for its governmental actions unless the immunity is waived. The immunity is retained by the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX. REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5262-19, § 14(7) (Vernon 1970) because this action involved the exercise of discretion in whether or not to build the crossing.
I would reverse the trial court and render a take-nothing judgment.