Court Opinion

ID: 9664564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:21:26.321457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.614122
License: Public Domain

GONZALEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
Today, the Court refuses to follow well-settled Texas precedent choosing instead to abolish the common law rule that prohibits a member of an unincorporated association from bringing a cause of action for negligence against the association. In trying to help Ms. Cox, the Court greatly expands the potential personal liability for the hundreds of thousands of volunteers across this state that selflessly give of their time *175in activities such as youth soccer leagues and little league baseball. The Court renders this unfortunate result by declaring dead the doctrine of imputed negligence. The task of modifying the liability of an unincorporated association to its members for negligence should be left to the legislature. Thus, I dissent.1
I.
Thee Evergreen Church is an independent, non-denominational church in Coldspring, Texas. At the time of the accident, Ms. Cox had belonged to the church for four years and was a member of its administrative board. In her application to this Court, Ms. Cox alleged that the Church was responsible for ensuring that the entrance-way of the day-care center was safely maintained. While dropping her son off at the church, she slipped and fell on this entrance-way which had become slick from rain. As a member of the administrative board, Ms. Cox herself may have been responsible for ensuring such entrance-way maintenance.
II.
A majority of jurisdictions follow the rule that a “member of an unincorporated association injured due to the tortious conduct of another member cannot sue the association.”2 See Calvary Baptist Church v. Joseph, 522 N.E.2d 371, 373 (Ind.1988); see also Zehner v. Wilkinson Memorial United Methodist Church, 399 Pa.Super. 165, 581 A.2d 1388 (1990). See, e.g., Goins v. Missouri Pac. Sys. Fed., 272 F.2d 458 (8th Cir.1959); Gilbert v. Crystal Fountain Lodge, 80 Ga. 284, 4 S.E. 905 (1887); Employer’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Griffin, 46 N.C.App. 826, 266 S.E.2d 18 (1980); Walsh v. Israel Couture Post, N. 2274, 542 A.2d 1094 (R.I.1988); Duplis v. Rutland Aerie, No. 1001, Fraternal Order of Eagles, 118 Vt. 438, 111 A.2d 727 (1955); Carr v. Northern Pacific Benef. Assoc., 128 Wash. 40, 221 P. 979 (1924); Fray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 9 Wis.2d 631, 101 N.W.2d 782 (1960); Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 748 P.2d 704 (Wyo.1987).
In Calvary Baptist Church v. Joseph, a church member was injured when he fell from a ladder while repairing the church’s roof. 522 N.E.2d at 372. The Supreme Court of Indiana, reversing the court of appeals’ judgment, held that the church *176was not liable for the member’s injury. Id. at 374. The court explained the non-liability rule for unincorporated associations as follows:
The theory of the general rule is that the members of an unincorporated association are engaged in a joint enterprise. The negligence of each member in the prosecution of that enterprise is imputable to each and every other member so that the member who has suffered damages through the tortious conduct of another member of the association may not recover from the association for such damage. It would be akin to the person suing himself as each member becomes both a principal and an agent to all other members for the actions of the group itself.
Id. at 374-75. In order to “avoid sacrificing reality to theoretical formalism,” the court excepted very large associations from the non-liability rule because they possess a separate identity from their members and the individual members have limited influence over the organization’s operations. Id. at 375; see also Marshall v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 57 Cal.2d 781, 22 Cal.Rptr. 211, 214, 371 P.2d 987, 990 (1962).3
In Zehner v. Wilkinson Memorial United Methodist Church, another case involving a church’s liability to a member for negligence, a woman was injured when she slipped and fell on the church’s steps while leaving after Christmas services. 581 A.2d at 1388. She sued the church alleging negligence for, among other things, failure to adequately light the steps. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment for the church and the court of appeals affirmed, noting that “any negligence of her fellow members is imputed to her and she cannot recover in tort.” Id. at 1389. The Zehner court found it significant that the injured member was on the committee which discussed the safety of the steps and decided not to act prior to her accident.
III.
This Court approved the general rule regarding the non-liability of unincorporated associations for negligence in United Ass’n of Journeymen and Apprentices v. Borden, 160 Tex. 203, 328 S.W.2d 739 (1959). While holding that a union member could sue his unincorporated union for its agent’s willful and malicious acts, the Court noted that the plaintiff would not have recovered if the agent had been merely negligent. Id. 328 S.W.2d at 744. The Court now overturns the majority rule expressed in Borden in favor of a broad liability standard for unincorporated associations.
The Court seeks authority for its action by relying on Shoemaker v. Estate of Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.1974), Rollins Leasing Corp. v. Barkley, 531 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1975), and Dutcher v. Owens, 647 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.1983). None of these cases supports the Court’s abrogation of the imputed negligence doctrine for unincorporated associations. In Shoemaker, the Court focused on modifying the joint enterprise doctrine. 513 S.W.2d at 17. That case involved a plane which crashed while engaged in a Civil Air Patrol reconnoiter in foul weather, killing the pilot and three passengers. Id. at 12. The estate of one of the passengers sued the pilot’s estate alleging negligence for choosing to fly in the severely inclement weather which ultimately caused the crash. Id. The issue was whether the Civil Air Patrol members engaged in a joint enterprise in choosing to go aloft in the airplane, and thus whether the court properly should have imputed contributory negligence to the plaintiff. Id. at 13.
The Court noted that the traditional elements of a joint enterprise in Texas only required proof of a joint interest in the *177venture’s purpose and an equal right to direct or control the conveyance used to accomplish the venture. Id. at 14. If a joint enterprise is proven, the Court observed, then negligence is imputed among tortfeasors participating in the enterprise. The Court recognized that the joint enterprise doctrine would compel the imputation of the pilot’s negligence to the deceased passenger. Id. at 16. The Court avoided this result by substantially revising the joint enterprise doctrine, limiting it exclusively to business or commercial contexts and thus obviating the imputed negligence issue. Id. at 17. This explanation clarifies why the Shoemaker Court included Dean Prosser’s negative comment regarding imputed contributory negligence. That is, the quote helped justify, particularly given Shoemaker’s factual context, a dramatic narrowing of the joint enterprise doctrine, which concomitantly narrowed the scope of the imputed negligence doctrine.
Likewise, Rollins Leasing Corp. v. Barkley does not help the Court’s argument. 531 S.W.2d at 604. Rollins involved a bailment and had nothing to do with unincorporated associations. Imputing a bailee’s contributory negligence to a bailor stemmed from an archaic bailment doctrine which analogized the bailor/bailee relationship to that of a principal and agent. Id. When we decided Rollins in 1975, we were the last jurisdiction to abandon the outdated bailment/agency analogy and with it went the doctrine of imputed contributory negligence between a bailor and a bailee. The Court’s strong criticism of the doctrine was confined exclusively to the context of bailments and thus has no bearing on the apportionment of liability in tort actions involving unincorporated associations.4
Dutcher v. Owens also is inapposite to the Court’s result. That case turned entirely upon an extended construction of the Texas Condominium Act to determine the liability among condominium co-owners for a fire caused by a faulty light fixture in the common area. Dutcher, 647 S.W.2d at 949. Relying on several provisions of the Act, which divide costs and expenses among the co-owners on a pro rata basis, the Court held that tort liability likewise should be divided on a pro rata basis. Id. at 951. The holding in Dutcher was fundamentally shaped by a statutory scheme; thus, the case simply does not involve the merit of the imputed contributory negligence doctrine regarding unincorporated associations.
The Court has abrogated the non-liability rule for unincorporated associations for negligence actions brought by members based on the Court’s conclusion that imputed negligence is by its very nature an outmoded doctrine. The accuracy of this conclusion, about which our sister jurisdictions are split, should not have persuaded this Court to engage in ill advised judicial activism.
IV.
The cases from our sister jurisdictions, upon which the majority relies to support its abrogation of the imputed negligence doctrine, are clearly distinguishable from the case before us, and they do not support the Court’s approach nor its conclusion. In most of the cited cases, the court derived its authority to act entirely from legislation which limited or abolished the imputed negligence doctrine.5
In Buteas v. Raritan Lodge, 248 N.J.Super. 351, 591 A.2d 623, 624 (1991), the court stated that “[w]e hold that N.J.S.A. 2A:64-1 to -6 modifies the common-law doctrine of imputed negligence among joint enter-prisers, thus enabling a member of a voluntary association encompassed by that legislation to seek a tort recovery from the association_” (emphasis added). And in *178Crocker v. Barr, 409 S.E.2d 368, 371 (S.C.1991), the South Carolina Supreme Court relied on S.C.Code §§ 33-55-200 et seq. to abolish the doctrine. Section 33-55-210 of the statute provided that when a tort is committed by a church employee and that employee is acting within the scope of his employment, an injured party “may only recover in any action brought against the charitable organization in an amount not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars.” The Crocker court found that the association being sued was within the statutory definition of “charitable organization” and that the statute “clearly contemplated] ... liability actions against unincorporated associations, including churches.” Id.
In Tanner v. Columbus Lodge No. 11, 44 Ohio St.2d 49, 337 N.E.2d 625, 626 (1975), the Ohio Supreme Court reexamined the general rule “in light of pronouncements of this court and legislative enact-ments_” (emphasis added). The court held that, by enacting the statutes, the legislature established associations as separate legal entities. Id. The court found that the statutes applied to all unincorporated associations because they refer to “any unincorporated association.” Id. 337 N.E.2d at 627. (emphasis added). The Tanner court concluded by stating that “[u]n-der the provisions of R.C. Chapter 1745, a member of an unincorporated association may maintain an action against the association for personal injuries resulting from the negligent acts of its agents, committed while within the scope of their authority.” Id.
These three cases, upon which the Court relies, are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, because the holdings were based on statutory changes enacted by the respective state legislatures. In the instant case, the majority concedes that the potentially relevant Texas statutes do not apply to non-commercial unincorporated associations. At 171. Thus, reliance on these cases is misplaced.
The majority also cites White v. Cox, 17 Cal.App.3d 824, 95 Cal.Rptr. 259 (1971), for support, but it does not apply because it deals with condominium projects. The White court reaffirmed a two prong analysis “to determine the tort liability of an association to its members....” Id. 95 Cal.Rptr. at 262-63. See Marshall v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 57 Cal.2d 781, 22 Cal.Rptr. 211, 214, 371 P.2d 987, 990 (Cal.1962) (see footnote two, supra). The court concluded that, like labor unions, the liability of condominium associations depends on “the nature of the condominium and its employment of the concept of separateness” and the level of control exerted by the unit’s owner over the association’s management. White, 95 Cal.Rptr. at 262. It is clear that the church involved in this case would not satisfy the elements of the Marshall test upon which the White decision turned.
Finally, the majority cites Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del.1991), to support its position that an unincorporated association is liable to its members for the negligence of other members. In Furek, a student was injured during fraternity hazing activities. Furek sued the local fraternity, the national affiliate of the local fraternity, the University of Delaware, and a fellow student. Id. at 509. The trial court dismissed the local fraternity on jurisdictional grounds, because Furek failed to make effective service of process on the association. Id. at 512-14. Despite what the majority suggests, Furek does not hold that an unincorporated association is liable for the tortious activity of its members. Furek merely interpreted a state statute regarding the proper service of partnerships and associations to hold that the trial court was correct in dismissing the local fraternity from the suit. Id. at 513.
V.
Because of its displeasure with the imputed negligence doctrine, the Court has decided that the majority rule regarding the non-liability of unincorporated associations shall no longer apply in Texas. To reach its result, the Court simply overturns the controlling precedent; yet the Court fails to provide any persuasive authority to justify its action. The Court merely agrees *179with Ms. Cox’s contention that the non-liability rule must go and then lays out a string of eases that ostensibly support its complete rejection of the imputed negligence doctrine. As our foregoing analysis of the cited authority demonstrates, the caselaw relied on by the Court does not adequately support its position. The Court’s decision ultimately rests on its determination that the proper public policy approach would allow church members to sue the church. I believe, however, that the imputed negligence doctrine appropriately applies in such situations, because church members are the collective co-owners of the church’s property. Ms. Cox was a “co-owner” of Thee Evergreen Church’s property. By suing the church for a slip and fall she suffered while on the church’s premises, she was in fact suing herself. The imputed negligence doctrine has obviated, until now, such legal conundrums. Cf. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 84.002(7) (legislature wants to “reduce the liability exposure” of charitable organizations like churches).
Every Texas church that is formed as an unincorporated association is now subject to being sued by one of its members for any alleged negligence that the members may commit. The unfortunate but unavoidable result of today’s decision is that some churches across this state will discontinue a wide range of beneficial services currently rendered for their members’ benefit, frequently free of charge, so as to limit their liability. This is but one of the many disruptive and deleterious effects that today’s result may inflict upon Texas’ volunteer community, all of which the Court apparently ignored in its zeal to abolish the imputed negligence doctrine. Cf. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 84.002(3) (legislature recognized that “because of concerns, over personal liability, volunteers are withdrawing from services in all capacities”).
A court should not abandon a doctrine developed at common law merely because it bars one avenue of relief to a sympathetic plaintiff. Before abrogating an existing common law doctrine, the court must analyze the policies the doctrine was designed to serve, determine whether reasons for the doctrine remain valid, and weigh the costs versus the benefits of disregarding the doctrine. The Court failed to do this here. Accordingly, for the above reasons, I dissent.

. I agree with Justice Cook’s observations in his concurrence that the personal liability of an association’s member should be limited to tor-tious acts which the member participated in or ratified.
In 1987, the Texas legislature passed the Charitable Immunity and Liability Act. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code ch. 84 (the Act has no substantive bearing on this case because it post-dates the cause of action). In section 84.002, titled "Findings and Purposes,” the legislature found that:
(1) robust, active, bona fide, and well-supported charitable organizations are needed within Texas to perform essential and needed services;
(2) the willingness of volunteers to offer their services to these organizations is deterred by the perception of personal liability arising out of the services rendered to these organizations;
(3) because of concerns over personal liability, volunteers are withdrawing from services in all capacities;
(4) the same organizations have a further problem in obtaining and affording liability insurance for the organization and its employees and volunteers;
(5) these problems combine to diminish the services being provided to Texas and local communities because of higher costs and fewer programs;
(6) the citizens of this state have an overriding interest in the continued and increased delivery of these services that must be balanced with other policy considerations; and
(7) because of the above conditions and policy considerations, it is the purpose of this Act to reduce the liability exposure and insurance costs of these organizations and their employees and volunteers in order to encourage volunteer services and maximize the resources devoted to delivering these services.
The Court’s decision is at cross-purposes with the irrefutably clear legislative intent revealed in the Charitable Immunity Act. That is, the Court is now expanding the liability of charitable organizations despite the legislature’s express will to limit that liability.

. By citing only three of the many jurisdictions that continue to abide by the non-liability rule, and then citing five that have abandoned it, the Court may have wrongly implied that the rule exempting unincorporated associations from liability is a waning doctrine. In fact, most jurisdictions still adhere to it.

. Rather than abandoning the non-liability rule, the Court could have used a test similar to the one announced by the California Supreme Court in Marshall v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen’s Union, 57 Cal.2d 781, 22 Cal.Rptr. 211, 371 P.2d 987, 990 (1962), which determines whether liability can accrue against an unincorporated association by asking: (1) whether the association possesses a separate legal existence from its members; and (2) whether the members retain direct control over the operations of the association. Cf. Dutcher v. Owens, 647 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.1983).

. Since a majority of jurisdictions still apply the non-liability rule for unincorporated associations, it is axiomatic that abrogating imputed contributory negligence for bailments does not render it useless in other contexts.

. As the Court notes, the Texas Legislature has refused to expand the non-liability rule contained in article 6133, which says that an "unincorporated joint stock company or association, whether foreign or domestic, doing business in this State, may sue or be sued....” at 171 (citing Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 6133 (1907)).