Court Opinion

ID: 9559087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:22:24.824896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:48.352764
License: Public Domain

*251CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur, but I deem it advisable to note that it is my opinion that a city is not necessarily protected against suit in all instances, even where the function is governmental. Respected authorities have recognized that where a static condition of extreme danger is knowingly permitted to persist, that the city may be held liable. Illustrative of this is the case of Wiggins v. City of Ft. Worth1 where the municipality was held responsible for keeping wild animals in a public park in such circumstances that an animal might reach and injure visitors, and the case of Hoffman v. City of Bristol2 where the city maintained a diving board over shallow water in a public swimming pool without any warning or indication of danger. It is easy to imagine other circumstances of such a hazardous nature being allowed to continue that gross injustice might exist if no redress were permitted.
While I am in accord with the decision here, that the fact situation does not come under the exception set out in such cases, and that our doctrine of governmental immunity from suits for negligence is so ingrained in our law that any change should be legislative, yet I believe that the authorities just referred to are well reasoned and that they are not in conflict with the decision in the instant case. And this is said despite the language used in Bingham v. Board of Education of Ogden City which seems somewhat broader than required by the fact situation there involved.

. Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 468, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 761.

.- Supra.