The opinion
WILL WI&ON
.--- ~ENERAX.
August 1, 1957
.,.
HonorablaHenry iad. OpinionN6. W-112
+j.strlct~Attorney
Dallas,Texas Ret The llablJky~.ofthe Dallas
Countyl@.pltalMetrlct for
nsgllg.nt:'~aots
0r its~employ-
ebs.and~.tb*uthority.to.
pur-'
chase publicllabllltyin;.
suranoei
You han:mabmltt.dfor our cawideratloa certain ues-
tlons catcerningth..operatlonof the Dal&. CountyHorpltaP
Dl.tPl&t.~Th.~.fir.t..lnvolv..
the llabllltf~~of
tbe'hoepltaldla-
. IxLotfor ~in~urles2e.ultingfrom the wgllgent~~otr or:aalprao-
.ttaui%lt. ,mgentl,br.aploy.88.
was araatedunder
~Th.Dalla.Coonti Hoepltal-Qieiklot
the.aukhorlty.oSSeat10114 oi.Art1al.r
I&M the TexasCanatltu-
tlon in themuner pravid8d bp,We Tezu%eglulature ln 4rtlcle
44!h, Veraon'Civil6tatuter..
.Tbr~ho8pltaldlatrl8t
1.r88-
tabllehedbp an ~leatl~4nlt$gtqd'.ifherby a petltlco. of 100
reeidelft quallfledp.rop&ty~ta%pay$~~ voterrorby a motion of
--the'~Oara\i.&o!iers'~C@urti::. Ofiq.,
.rtr8ate,d
~Xhe..hospltal district
m+rroUw.kithar~ county;ofclty+&iity lbpitrl dlstrlcte'. ., The
:.'dlsttiiot: hae'.th.,pwer.oStmtlm to'#mutent of‘seventy-
:flveoedts.peron. hundreddollarvaluation eucbtax to be lev-
led.bythe;Count$ Taz-Assessor Colleotor. a&oollected ln~the.
‘~.stie. mauuer. aa~aouuty~tuee. .TheCoiml8eloners~ Court of the
:Q0&~h~si~th~.~poif.r ta~lssu~and~'iill.~obllgatl~ns of.the hos;
'pltal3litzlct for cwrtruatl*, 'purchare,or enlargement ,of:a
ho&ta1,or,hospltal~.ystei,after an electionauthorlalng: suoh
. ., ',
The Board of Msnigere'6ithe.hospltaldistrictl@ ap-
olntedby the Commla.lon.rs I-Courtof the aounty their dutler
1ring to manage,controlaud-admlnlster the hosplgalsysteiof
the,hosplt8ldi.rtrlctu ,Tlu statute 8p8altiaallyprovld.8that
the Board of,Managersahall-&av..th. parerto mi. and be sued.
Zhaddltlo~ .fh.hO8plttaf.~dilrtrlat 1. g1V.n thi right and.~pwe,r
of eminent&aul+
The mcordr of hoepltaldistrictsorganizedunder this
statuteare subjectto inspectionby the 8tate Departmentof
Honora& Henry Wade, page 2 (Ww-112)
Health and the Commissioners1 Cotirt of the county, and the ap-
propriate prosecuting attorney for the county Is charged with
the duty of representing the hospital district in all legal
rmatters.
There Is little doubt but that a hospital district
created under the provlslons of this statute is a governmental
entity..., Because of the vieu we take as to the nature of Its
purpose irhd operation, It is unnecessary foti.ua to ~detexmlue~
Its ‘exact nature. The courts of Texas have consistently held
that the furnishing of hospital services by a munlcipallty ,or
county c?nrtltutes a governmental function. Gltv of wv.
-,~..107~ fi.W.2d 872 (Tex.Comm.App. 1937). Gartman v. Cltv of
&&&~Q,...,IXJ~ S.%2d 879 (Tex.Comm.App. 1935). Since the actl-
vity of operatlng a public hospital of this-type is a govern-
mental actavlty, no llablllty will attaoh for the neglluent
acts.of the servauts or e111ploy8es of a hospital district, (41
C. J.S. Hospitals Section 8, Annotation 25 A.L.B.2d 203);m
a Falls ‘(I. Bob-, ,121 Tax. 133, 46 8.U.2d 965
of Dallas v. @&$&, supra; &&man v. Cltv of Q-
The~ef&e; we conclude that the Dallas County Hospl-
tal District, being engaged in a governmental function only,
la not liable for the negligent acts or malpractice oi Its
agents or employees.
Your second question asks whether, ii our answer to’
the flrst question doer not lmpose*llablllty on the hospital
di&rlct, the hospital district, has authority to Issue a vouch-
er ln paymu+ of preniums on pub&? 1labIlIty lneuranoe wll-
Cl8S i
Bectlou 52 or Article III or the Teucas Constitution
governs this question, ad reads as follows8 .
?
“The Legislature shall have no power to au-
thorize any county city, town or other political
corporattin or sub&vision of the State to lend
Its credit or to gr*t public money or thing of
value in aid of, or to any lndlvldual~ aasocla-
tlon or corporation whatsoever’, . . .’
Honorable Henry Uade, page 3 (WI+112)
This office has consistently held, and prdperly so,
that the Commlssloners I Court of a county does not have au-
thority to purchase public llablllty insurance covering the
operation of governmental functions in which the county would
not be liable for the ‘negligent acts of its servants.
lons S-55,v-763, O-1922 and O-5567. We think these ho%&
apply to your inquiry. You are, therefore, advised that the
Board of Managers of the Dallas County Eospltal Mstrlot does
not have authority to purchase public liability insurance cov-
erage on the oper&lons of the &strict. -
The personal views of the Attorney Oenerel on this
subject are expressed in a dissent to nett v. Brown Counte
Mstrlct, 153 Tax. 599, 272 S.W.2d 49 954) .
‘We exprese our appreciation to Assistant District
Attorney John Webster for his able brief which uas marthelpful
to our ofrlce * the preparation or this oplnlon.
The Poller County Hospital District 1s not lle-
ble for the negligent act8 or malpractice of its
agents or employees. The Hoapltal Dletrlot cannot
legally purchase llablllty insurance. ~ovarlng~lts
operations.8ectlon 52, ,Artlole XII, Texas Constltu-
tion.
.:‘,:’
JHH:staub
8; Oredy Chtidlir , Chalrmaa
Y. V. Geppert . ..
.
Wellace Finfrock ‘
B. H. Tlmmlns, Jr.
RRVIEYBOFOR Ta ATTORNBY
ORNRRAL
BY: &o; P. Blackburn