THEATTORNEYGENERAI.
OF TEXAS
PRICE DANIEL
ATWJRNEYOENERAL
Augtud 6, 1948 ‘.$,’
Hon. 8. C. Smith Opinion Ro. V-653
Ceuntp Attorney
Basque county Re: Authority of the Commission-
Meridfan, Texas ersE Court to compromis&
and pay a claim for damages
resulting from the collapse
of a county bridge.
hear Sir:
We refer to your letter in which you submit
the following:
%everal months ago a gravel truck was
crossing a bridge over the Bosque River on
a County Road when the bridge gave way and
the truck fall some twenty feet into the
stream and killed the driver.
“The widow of the driver, for herself
and her minor children is about to bring
suit against Bosque County but have agreed
to compromise their suit and settle for
$350.00.
"We realize the goneral rule that a
County Is not liable for the negligence of
Its agents and that Bosque County could not
legally pay a claim based on negligence if
presented through channels.
wHowover, our question is, ‘Can Bosque
County by way of compromise of a law suit
to avoid the paysent of attorneys fees, wit-
ness fees and other costs, legally pay $350.-
00 for the complete settlement and dismissal
of said claimlw
In G. H. Ir S. A. Ry. Co. v. Uvalde County, 167
S. W. 2d 305,error refused, the Court of Civil Appeals
followed the rule of decision in prior c$ted cases, say-
ing:
-
Bon, S+ C. Smith - tage 2 (v-653)
“The commissioners’ court of a county
has only such psders as are sxpressly or by
necessary implication given such court by
the constitution and the statutss..ir
We have not found any law vhich authorizes the
Commissioners’ Court to pay any part of an asserted claim
against the county for which the county has no legal lia-
bility. Such payment is prohibited by the State Consti-
tutlon,‘.Art. III, Sec. 52.
In the case of Heigel v1 Wichita County, 84 Tex.
392, 19 S. tiJ. 562, the Supreme Court said:
“This suit was brought by appellant to
rscever of Wichita County damages fcr per-
sonal injuries caused by a defective bridge,
A demurrer was sustained to the petition,
and the plaintiff having declined to amend,
tha suit was dismissed.
“rho question presented seems not to
have been authoritatively decided In this
court though in The Cit of Galveston v.
Posnalnsky 62 Texas 11 i it is held, that
a city is liable und& s&.lar circumstances.
But the opinion in that case recognizes the
doctrine that a different rule applies as to
counties. . , At the same time it is very
generally held, that’counties are not liable
for similar injuries unless such liability
be created by statute, either by express
words or by necessary implication . . . it
is fairly well settled that in cases like
this cities are liable and counties are not,
and we therefore feel constrained by the au-
thorities to hold that the petition under
consideration showed no cause of action
against Wichita county.”
Opinions Nos, O-5543 and O-2136 are pertinent
to your Inquiry and we enclose a cwpy of each of' them
for your information.
We are of the opinion that the Commissioners'
Court sf Bosque County ma:7 not lawfully compromise the
claim ~-or damages resulting from a county bridge callaps-
ing.
.
Hon. 8. C. Smith - ~agr 3 (V-653)
A county is not liable for inJuries
caused by a drfsctlve bridge. The Commls-
slonerst court has no lawful authority to
co8proalsr and pay any part of a claim
asrertod against the county ior which such
county is not legally liable.
Pours very truly,
ATTORNEY GSIWRALOF TEXAS
byme9
WTWrwb W. T. Williams
xm!lr. Assistant
APPROVD: