Court Opinion

ID: 9648632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:31:01.500698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:03.315567
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, the appellants have again eloquently argued the injustice of a lack of a remedy for children such as Leslie Miller, injured by toxic chemicals while in the course of school science class. While this court may disagree among its members whether the dissent of Justice Johnson, joined by Justice Pope, in Barr should be the law, we are in unanimous agreement that the integrity of the judicial process commands this intermediate appellate court to obey the chain of command and follow the dictates of the majority of the Texas Supreme Court in Barr and Hopkins. .
For this author at least, it is troubling from a public policy standpoint that our corporate citizens have unfettered access to the courts for redress of perceived tortious grievances,1 but children, whose well-being has been entrusted to fiduciaries known as parents and teachers do not have access because of Barr and Hopkins. Recognizing that school personnel are conscientious, careful adults an overwhelming majority of the time, they, like other human beings, have occasional lapses of reasonable care for which the law has developed a remedy known as the negligence cause of action. Whether there was negligence in this particular situation is not before this court in this proceeding and no opinion is expressed thereon. What is before us, however, is whether children should have similar rights for redress of grievances as do corporations. This author does not find the concept inconsistent with basic fairness and expresses the hope that the Texas Supreme Court or the Texas Legislature will recognize the wisdom and justice of providing children some remedy in these unusual and extreme circumstances.2 See e.g., Tex. EdugCode Ann. § 21.912(c) (Vernon 1987) (provision for no personal liability not applicable to operation, use, or maintenance of any motor vehicle).
Accordingly, appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

. See, e.g., Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 729 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 994, 108 S.Ct. 1305, 99 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988).

. I agree with Justice Peeples that there should not be wholesale litigation between students and teachers; however, I fail to see the logical consistency in a public policy which provides a remedy to a child maimed or killed because of negligent use of a motor vehicle (Tex.Educ.Code § 21.912(c)) and denies relief to a child maimed or killed by the negligent use of toxic chemicals. If there are to be exceptions such as in § 21.-912(c), there should also be some attempt to address other extreme circumstances such as the one before us.