Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Ron. R. V. Rayford, page 3 .cV-763) '..~ '~ : : the employees of A. &~d M. Colleges-since.the rendition of the above cited.hases,:the general .rule of law sn-' nounaed therein Is .applicable to the instant..questlon. _. -,.. . In the case of.Hodge v. Lowercolorado River Authority, 163 S. W. (26) 855 (Writ Refused) it is stat? ed that: "It is equally well settled;;how8veri that a CoUxkty is a govern&r&al agenqy and as.such.is immune from.llablllty~tor~all .: s ,. torts, .jUst .as is the State itsiiir,un~qv3 suoh liability is created by stat,Ute;!!.-.* : ... . :*;Artlcle46d-15, Vi C. S.i.&ovld& as'fellous: *'? .. 7 .,, -"The acquisition .0ra&l&l~!&;int&- eat therein pursuant.to this &ti:.th8-~Dlsn~-+ nlngt.:acqulsitlon, establisbmht,-+levelopmcint,. canstruction,.improvemiintr..majnte~ce.,: equip,-' ment; operation,regulatlon,.pSotedt~on~and.~.. policlng.of alrports'irind alr.~yigatk&:f'faql$+ ities; iticludingthe acquisl$im ozielk&m- tion of airport haesrds; ahd.the:ex+r+se of :. any other powers herein-granted to municipal- .-H-Les.and:other public'agendi.e's,tq;be sever- '*all3 or.jolntly- exercised, are hereby declared - do'be DUblic aUd+Qovernmental fun%tions. exer- clsed for a DUbliC DUrDOS8. and,siatters Of .publZc neoessits: snd In the .cas8 of an~~'coua' tg. are.declared to be county functions aiid pur~oses'as well as Dubllc snd,+Qovernmental; and Iii the case of.any munioipalltgl:other: .. ~'. than's coufity, are declared to be,municipal. functions'iind purposes as well.as publicand goveraynental. All. land%ind other property and privileges acquired and used by or on be- half of any~~municlpalitg or other. public.: agency in the-manner- and forthe purposes ~enumerated~~ln this Aot.shall andsreherebg :declared..tobe"acquired and used,:for-:pUbliQ and governmental purposes and 'as a mattey.of' : public necessity, and, in,the pas8 of a ooun- ty or'm~i.c+pal~tg, for,county~or~municipal purpg$est,lrespectivelg. ~,,{,Em;Phasls added.). '3lrti'c~e&d-21 is. aS'followS: " .'i __i. : Hon. R. V. Rayford, page 4 (V-763) "This Act ls~cumulative of and in addi- tlon to all laws of the State of Texas on this subject." Also, Article 1269h, Sec. 3, provides, In pert as follows: " . and no cltyor county shall be liable for Injuries to persons resulting from or caused by'any defective, unsound or unsafe condition of any suih Air’ Port, or any. part thereof, or thing of any chara;cter.there- In or resulting from or caused by any negll- gence, w-&t of skill, or lack of care on the part of any governing Board.or Commisslonersf Court;officer, agent, servant or employee or other person with reference to the ConStrUc- tion; ~lmprovement, management, conduct, or maintenauce of any such.Alr Port or.any struc- ture, improvement, or thing of any character whatever, located therein or CoIUX8Ct8d-th8r8- with;" (Reld~unconstitutional as t0 Citi8S in th8 case Of Christopher v. City Of m Paso,. 98 s. w. (28) 394.) gfnoe,the County IS 8CtiIIg in a gOV8rnm8ntal capacity In th8 operation of sn.alrport .and in viev,of the foregoing, it is .our opinion that the'county $13not liable. Of oourse; if the county, inthe operation or maintenance'of the arrport takes or confismates private property of individuals for public use without due.pro- cess, of law; the county Is liable therefor. .&le v.. State, 136 Tex. 29, 146 S. W: (28) 7'31. That liability cannot be dissolved by the leasing of the property. With reference to your question as te whether the county hae authority to csrrg insuranoe covering bodily injury, property damage or any other damages for whloh it woUI.d not be 1lable;it was held in,Attorney General's Opinion V-381 that: * the Coimnissioners~ Court has no- authoriti'io contract .for;aompensatiotion in-~' sursnoe for its employees or for public lia- bility insurance., Attorney GeneraLOpinions ~Xbs. O-353, O-1922 ed 0~5315. Iq answerto youy fifth question, it is our opinlouthat the county can not contract for compensation insurance for its employees or for public Hon. R. V. Rayford, Page 5 (V-763) llabillty insurance.' It is further-our opln- ion thatthe county auditor is not authorized- to contract with the county for any insurance, and that such contract would be in violation ~:of ArtFcle 373, V.PiC." Article III of the state Constitution was amended.%n the recent election by adding"gection 60 thereto authorliing the bgislatUr8 to.pass"such 1aWS n8cessary to 8llabl8 all COuXlti8S 0r this State to pro- 'vid8 Workm8n~s Compensatloh, Including the right to provide its own inSuraIlC8 and to provide for the pay- ment of same .by the Counties. However, the necessary legislation has not been passed..' Hence the rulii Of law ennounoed in the Hedge .&se as"wel1 as the above Attorney General Opinion 4s applicable to our auestl'dn, an4 vi11 be until and Ul18SS theL8giSlatuX'e ,paSS8S SXI Act permlttlng countl6s to purchase such insurance. A?mMARY _. : The County a&a in a~'gov8rnmental ca- pabity in the operation of an.alrport %s not liable forth8 torts committed b its agents ~hil8 operating the same. Art. v. Lower Colorado River Authority6d%igl!o?e (2d) 855, err@ refused. The C-om&sIonerst Court has no authority to carry lnsurano~ cov-- ering b&lXly injury, property damage or any other--damages for which the county would not . be liable. Very truly yours, ATTORNEY GRRERAL dF TEXAS BA&:bh Assistant APPROVED 'ATTOR1PEJI GRRERAL