Court Opinion

ID: 9673961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:21:11.22023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:38.196213
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Smedley,
joined by Justices Sharp, Garwood and Wilson, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority, because it subjects petitioner, the City of Houston, to liability for injuries suffered by respondent as the result of the negligence of an employee of the city while engaged in the performance of a governmental function of the city.
Respondent was injured in a collision between her automobile and a truck owned and operated by the city in the collection *393of garbage. This brings the case under City of Fort Worth v. George, 108 S. W. 2d 929. And, as stated in substance in the opinion of the majority, the refusal of the application for writ of error in that case made the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in effect the decision of this Court. The soundness of the George case has not been questioned by this Court. On the contrary, the decision there made has been repeated in later opinions of this Court and the Courts of Civil Appeals, and recognized as the established law of the State. City of Houston v. Quinones, 142 Texas 282, 286, 177 S. W. 2d 259; Bates v. City of Houston, 189 S. W. 2d 17; City of Wichita Falls v. Kemp Hotel Operating Company, 162 S. W. 2d 150, 154, affirmed in Kemp Hotel Operating Company v. City of Wichita Falls, 141 Texas 90, 170 S. W. 2d 217.
The basis of the decision in the George case, like that in other cases where the function involved pertains to the public health, is that there is no liability on the part of the city because the city is engaged in the performance of a duty delegated to it and imposed upon it by law and to be performed for the benefit of the general public. City of Wichita Falls v. Robinson, 121 Texas 133, 46 S. W. 2d 965; City of Dallas v. Smith, 130 Texas 225, 107 S. W. 2d 872. In this connection attention is called to the fact, as pointed out in the opinion in the George case, that the city in collecting and disposing of garbage is performing duties for the protection of the public health under the Sanitary Code set out in the general laws of this state. See Article 4477 of Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes and other articles of the statutes cited in the George case. A later Act of the Legislature establishes minimum standards and requirements of sanitation and health protective measures to be complied with by all governmental units and expressly includes the disposal of garbage and refuse. Chapter 178, Acts Regular Session, 49th Legislature, page 234.
The opinion of the majority recognizes the rule of the George case as the established law of this State, but departs from the rule, or undertakes to avoid its application to this case, by splitting the city’s performance of the function of gathering and disposing of garbage into two parts and holding that in part of the performance the city is acting in a governmental capacity and in the other part of the performance it is acting in a proprietary capacity. This grows out of the two findings of the jury, one that the injuries suffered by respondent were caused by negligent operation of the garage truck by its driver, and the other that the injuries were caused by the *394negligent failure on the part of city employees to inspect and repair the brakes on the garbage truck immediately before the collision. The opinion concedes that for the negligent operation of the truck the city is not liable, but holds that the inspection or repairing of the brakes in the garage owned by the city and operated by its Garbage Department in the maintenance of its garage trucks is the exercising of a proprietary function, and that for negligence in the inspection and repairing of the brakes on the truck the city is liable.
The undisputed facts in the record with reference to the garage and its operation are these: The garage building owned by the city, together with the ground connected with it, occupies 277 by 485 feet. It is situated in the city and near one of its main thoroughfares. It has the same type of equipment, tools and appliances as other garages that take care of motor vehicles. It has from twenty to twenty-seven employees, including eleven mechanics, seven helpers and other laborers. The garage is maintained and operated as a part of the Garbage Department of the city. It is operated only for the purpose of maintaining the automotive equipment used in the gathering and disposal of garbage and it does not take care of, repair or maintain any automotive equipment except that which belongs to the Garbage Department of the city. As part of the maintenance the brakes on the garbage trucks are adjusted and repaired. Whenever a garbage truck “goes bad” or “breaks down” it is brought to the garage for repairing and a relief truck is sent from the garage to take its place. The city operates each day fifty-four garbage trucks and has in addition a number of. “stand-by” trucks.
It is very apparent from the foregoing undisputed facts that the operation of the garage is a part of the city’s gathering and disposal of garbage. It is as certainly a part of the performance of that function as is the driving .of the trucks. The garage is used and operated to keep the trucks running and the garbage moving. There is no sound reason for a ruling that the inspection and repairing of the trucks in the garage and the trucks themselves standing in the garage and undergoing repairs before going upon the streets to gather garbage are not means and instrumentalities for and in the performance of the governmental function of gathering garbage, when the same trucks, as soon as they are driven onto the streets and their driving on the streets are such means and instrumentalities. Keeping the trucks in repair is essential to their successful operation. It is for the accomplishment of the same purpose and a part *395of the same function, the gathering of the garbage. Had the garage been maintained and used for the repairing of all motor vehicles owned by the city and used for whatever purpose, a somewhat different question would be presented, but this garage is a part of the Garbage Department of the city. It has no other purpose and no other function than to further the gathering and disposal of garbage.
In City of Wichita Falls v. Robison, 121 Texas 133, 46 S. W. 2d 965, the plaintiff, an employee of the sanitary department of the city, suffered injury to his eye from handling disinfectant powder which it was his duty to distribute wherever required. The city’s defense, sustained by this Court, was that it was not liable, because the plaintiff was injured in the performance of duties involving a governmental function. The Court expressed the opinion that the plaintiff in handling the disinfectant was engaged in the performance of a governmental function, because the rise of the disinfectant was reasonably incident and appropriate to the operation of the sanitary department of the city for the promotion of the public health. So here, the inspection and repairing of the garbage trucks in the garage operated solely for that purpose is at least reasonably incident and appropriate to the operation of the garbage trucks for the promotion of the public health. It is my belief that the operation of the garage under the facts in this case is not only reasonably incident and appropriate to the performance of the governmental function, but is in truth a part of the very performance of the function.
Other decisions of the Texas courts support in principle the conclusion expressed in this dissent. They hold that the city is not liable for injuries caused by the negligent construction or maintenance of an instrumentality owned and maintained by the city in the furtherance of a governmental function, even though no negligence is shown in the actual performance of the function. City of Munday v. Shaw, 100 S. W. 2d 765; Barnes v. City of Waco, 262 S. W. 1081, application for writ of error refused; Adkinson v. City of Port Arthur, 293 S. W. 191, application for writ of error refused; Ballard v. City of Fort Worth, 62 S. W. 2d 594, application for writ of error refused; McVey v. City of Houston, 273 S. W. 313; Braun v. Trusees of Victoria Independent School District, 114 S. W. 2d 947, application for writ of error refused.
The opinion of the majority cites five decisions of courts of other states, three of them decisions of the Oklahoma court. *396The case upon which chief reliance is placed is Oklahoma City v. Foster, 118 Okla. 120, 247 Pac. 80, 47 A. L. R. 822. Any value that case might have as a persuasive authority is in a great measure destroyed by the contents of the opinion. It uses as authority a decision of the Oklahoma court, City of Shawnee v. Roush, 101 Okla. 60, 223 Pac. 354, holding that a city is liable for injuries of a patient caused by the negligence of an employee of the city hospital, which is contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is interesting to observe that the decision in City of Shawnee v. Roush was made nothwithstanding Oklahoma statutes then in effect, similar to the Texas statutes discussed in City of Dallas v. Smith, 130 Texas 225, 107 S. W. 2d 872, which authorized cities in Oklahoma, in the interest of the public health, to erect and maintain hospitals and made it the duty of the mayors and councils to enforce all rules and regulations for the public health as prescribed by the State Board of Health, Oklahoma Statutes of 1941, Title 11, Sec. 665, Title 63, Secs. 10, 11. And at the end of the opinion in Oklahoma City v. Foster the decision is placed in part upon the startling conclusion that while the city acts in a governmental capacity in determining the kind, character and capacity of motor vehicles it will require for the police department, when these questions have been determined, it acts in a ministerial capacity in the execution of the work and the management of the property, and for negligence in the execution of the work and the management of the property the city is liable. The other two Oklahoma cases merely follow the Foster case. The facts in the Nebraska case, Levine v. City of Omaha, 102 Neb. 328, 167 N.W. 214, are so different in many respects from the facts in the instant case that it is not authority for the decision of the majority. That case is not one of negligent inspection or repairing of a motor vehicle. The garage from which the car was taken was maintained to care for automobiles used by the street department as well as those used by the police department. The case turned on a question of agency, the automobile that caused the injury having been entrusted by the foreman of the garage to one who was not an employee of the city. The California case, Bertiz v. City of Los Angeles, 74 Cal. App. 792, 241 Pac. 921, is by an intermediate appellate court, and the garage was maintained by the city for repairing all automobiles owned by the city except those belonging to and operated by the bureau of power and light and the water department.
The decision of the majority appears from the decision itself and from expressions in the opinion to be influenced by disapproval of the rule that exempts cities from liability for neg*397ligence in the performance of governmental functions. The opinion takes pains to point out that the rule has been criticized and questioned, citing cases from other jurisdictions. Finally it is said in the opinion that to agree with petitioner’s contention would be to extend the immunity now allowed to cities. The decisions of the courts of this state, including those cited herein, as well as others, do not justify these statements.
It is my belief that the decision is not merely a strict construction of the doctrine but is a serious impairment of it and is a step that probably will lead to the destruction of it. If the established law of this state that cities are not liable for injuries caused by negligence of employees engaged in the performance of governmental functions is to be changed, it should not be changed by a process of impairment, not heretofore used, which devides the function or its performance into parts and designates one part governmental and the other part propriety, It would be better for the Court to meet the question squarely and overrule the prior decisions. It would be still better that the law on this question, so well settled and followed so long, be changed, if it is to be changed, by legislative enactment. This Court should remember what was said by it in City of Port Arthur v. Wallace. There the Court, referring to the rule as to liability of the city for negeligence in discharging its proprietary functions and the rule as to nonliability for negligence in discharging its governmental functions, said: “The rule of liability in one function and nonliability in the other is so well established in this State that, if change is to be made, it should be made by the legislature and not by the courts.” 141 Texas 201, 204, 171 S. W. 2d 480.
The function, whether governmental or proprietary, includes and should be held to include, all of the elements or parts of the function. Unless it is so held there will no longer be a well defined distinction between governmental and proprietary functions. The principal vice in the decision of the majority is that it opens the way to the destruction of a long established principle of law by taking apart heretofore well established governmental functions and seeking to find in some part something that may seem to be proprietary in nature.
Judgment should be rendered for the City of Houston.
Associate Justices Sharp, Garwood and Wilson concur in this opinion.
Opinion delivered June 13, 1951.
Rehearing overruled July 25, 1951.