Court Opinion

ID: 9678310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:16:31.709039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:03.430360
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the granting of the summary judgment. The majority relies, in part, on a quotation from Alamo National Bank v. Kraus, 616 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.1981). This case stands for an excellent proposition of law, however, it is not on point. Alamo, supra, dealt with the demolition of a building next to a roadway and its rationale looks to the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, secs. 368, 414A (1965). These sections speak to the creation of artificial conditions on or adjacent to highways.
The section of the restatement dealing with natural conditions, section 363, establishes a general rule of nonliability for a land owner for physical harm caused to others outside of his land by a natural condition of the land. Further, in Jezek v. City of Midland, 605 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex.1980), the court, stated:
The rationale behind these cases is best stated in Barton. ‘To allow it [recovery] would be to hold, literally, that thousands of county road intersections are inherently dangerous. To so hold would impose an imponderable responsibility upon counties.’ Barton v. King County, 18 Wash.2d 573, 139 P.2d 1019, 1021 (1943).
We recognize the problem of imposing this type of duty on counties. It would be a rigorous burden indeed for a rural county in a state such as Texas to police and remove vegetation from roads when they cause visual obstruction. This, however, is not the case before us. Our case is based upon a theory of proprietary function of government. Counties in Texas have no proprietary functions and thus would have no duty in this area, (citation omitted)
Therefore, the granting of the summary judgment in favor of Kansas City Southern *921Railway and Southwestern Bell Telephone (Bell) was proper. There is an additional reason that the granting of the summary judgment in favor of Bell was proper. It was undisputed that Bell only had a subsurface easement. Surely, a subsurface easement holder has no duty to maintain the surface.
As to the duty of the state to maintain the rights-of-way, the majority misplaces their reliance on the definition of highway in article 6701d sec. 13(a), supra. It is readily apparent that article 667J)q~4 places the duty upon the state to maintain the highways. This does not, under the definition of roads in TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. ANN. art. 6674q-2 (Vernon 1977), place a duty on the state to maintain or mow the rights-of-way. If the legislature desires to place such a duty upon the state, they may do so. Until then, no such duty exists. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.