Court Opinion

ID: 9635960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:11:05.889859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:39.459141
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in that part of the judgment awarding actual damages. See Barfield v. City of La Porte, 849 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, 1993). Because I cannot find a waiver of governmental immunity allowing the exemplary damages, I dissent from the majority’s affirming that part of the judgment against the city.
Waiver of sovereign immunity is a matter addressed to the legislature. Durhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.1980). Any legislative waiver of governmental immunity must be clear and unambiguous. Id. at 742.
The functions of a municipal entity fall into one of two categories — governmental or proprietary. City of Houston v. Southwest Concrete Const., 835 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied). “Governmental functions” are those functions that the municipality carries out as an arm of the State for the purpose of serving the general public. Id. *886A municipality acting in a governmental function is afforded the State’s sovereign immunity except to the extent that the State has waived that immunity under the Tort Claims Act. Id.; Tex.Civ.PRAc. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.001-101.109 (Vernon 1986 & Supp.1993). On the other hand, municipalities have long been liable for torts committed while engaged in a proprietary function. Turvey v. City of Houston, 602 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex.1980); City of Fort Worth v. George, 108 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1937, writ ref’d).
In adopting the Tort Claims Act, the legislature preserved this distinction. Act of May 22, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 292, § 18(a), 1969 Tex.Gen.Laws 878, repealed by Act of June 16,1987, 70th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 2, § 3.13, 1987 Tex.Gen.Laws 50. And, using a constitutional grant of authority, it has adopted a non-exclusive list of functions that it deemed to be governmental in nature and another non-exclusive list that it deemed proprietary. Tex. Const, art. 11, § 13; Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.0215(a), (b) (Vernon Supp.1993). The liability for acts committed while performing governmental functions is that allowed by the Act. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.025(a) (Vernon 1986). The Act does not authorize recovery of exemplary damages. Id. § 101.024.
Operation of a sewer system is a governmental function. See id. § 101.0215(a)(9). Furnishing workers’ compensation coverage is a governmental function. Wallace v. City of Midland, 836 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992, writ denied). Hiring and firing of city employees is a governmental function. Town of South Padre Island v. Jacobs, 736 S.W.2d 134, 144 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, writ denied) (on rehearing); City of Dallas v. Moreau, 718 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Prince was employed by the City as a sewer lift-station operator; he sued after he was fired for filing a worker’s compensation claim. Every aspect of his claim involves a governmental function.
A claim for exemplary damages may not be brought unless permission to sue for exemplary damages is specifically and expressly given. Board of Regents v. Denton Const. Co., 652 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Can we find an express, unambiguous waiver of immunity that renders the City of La Porte liable for exemplary damages?
The workers’ compensation statute does not waive immunity for exemplary damages — its applicability here is (1) to require that the city cover its employees with workers’ compensation coverage, either through insurance, self-insurance, or an interlocal agreement providing self-insurance and (2) to create the cause of action for wrongful discharge that allowed Prince to recover his actual damages. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 8307c, 8309h § 2(a) (Vernon Supp. 1993). In fact, section 3(e) of article 8309(h) provides that the entire article is subject to the provisions of the Tort Claims Act. Id. art. 8309(h), § 3(e). It provides:
Nothing in this Act or the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act (S.B. No. 1, Acts of the 71st Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 1989) shall be construed to authorize causes of action or damages against a political subdivision or employee of a political subdivision beyond the actions and damages authorized by the Texas Tort Claims Act (Chapter 101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code).
Id. The Tort Claims Act does not authorize recovery of exemplary damages. Tex. Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.024.
Section 101.028 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code has been held not to be a waiver of governmental immunity in tort suits, as opposed to administrative claims for worker’s compensation. Barfield, 849 S.W.2d at 844 (citing Bridges v. Texas A & M Unix. System, 790 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ)). This section, providing only that a municipality that does elect to provide workers’ compensation coverage for its employees shall “enjoy ... privileges and immunities ... of private individuals and corporations,” cannot be said to waive immunity in a governmental-function situation. Tex. Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.028 (Vernon 1986). I read this provision as grant*887ing municipalities certain rights, not as taking any away. It should not be read to mean that such a municipality stands on the same footing as private individuals and corporations in all respects. Further, this interpretation is reinforced by Section 101.-024, a part of the same subchapter of the Tort Claims Act, that specifically disclaims any waiver of immunity as to exemplary damages. Id. § 101.024 (Vernon 1986).1
Finally, City of Gladewater v. Pike cannot be read to waive immunity in a governmental-function situation. City of Gladewater v. Pike, 727 S.W.2d 514 (Tex.1987). The opinion in Pike clearly specifies that the city’s liability arose out of a proprietary function — operation and maintenance of a cemetery.2 Id. at 519. At most, the case stands for the proposition that, even in a proprietary-function case, a city is not liable for exemplary damages unless the plaintiff can show (1) that the city’s agent acted with a culpable state of mind, i.e., that the actor engaged in willful, wanton, malicious or grossly negligent conduct, and (2) that the culpable acts were expressly authorized by the municipal government or done in the bona fide pursuit of general authority to act for the municipality on the subject to which they relate. Id. at 522-23; City of Odessa v. Bell, 787 S.W.2d 525, 528 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, no writ). Pike simply does not speak to governmental-function liability.
Because I believe that the majority has found a waiver of governmental immunity where none exists, I would reform the judgment to eliminate the award of exemplary damages and, as reformed, affirm it.

. At least one Court of Appeals believes that, because the Legislature has now defined certain functions as "proprietary” in the Tort Claims Act, section 101.024 of the Act precludes the recovery of exemplary damages "regardless of whether the function was governmental or pro-prietary_” City of Odessa v. Bell, 787 S.W.2d 525, 527-28 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, no writ); Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 101.0215(b), 101.024.

. The Legislature has now classified the operation of cemeteries and cemetery care as governmental functions. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.0215(a)(5).