# Stimpson v. Plano Independent School District

> Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · November 30, 1987 · 743 S.W.2d 944

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759511

## Case

- **Full name:** Ammie STIMPSON, Appellant, v. PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dr. H. Wayne Hendrick, and Martha Hunt, in Their Individual and Official Capacities, Appellees
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)
- **Decided:** November 30, 1987
- **Citations:** 743 S.W.2d 944; 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 9246; 1987 WL 41971
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCRAW
- **Judges:** Whitham, Rowe, McCraw
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759511

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing reasons for development of quasi-estoppel doctrine
- discussing the affirmative defense of estoppel

## Opinion text

McCRAW, Justice,
dissenting.
I concur with the majority’s holding that PISD is protected by the Texas Torts Claims Act and is immune from this suit in tort. However, I dissent from the majority’s reversal of the summary judgment entered in favor of Superintendent Hendrick and Principal Hunt.
It is undisputed that Hendrick and Hunt are employees of PISD and as such, are immune from liability for actions performed within the scope of their employment, except in limited circumstances, not relevant here. See Russell v. Edgewood Independent School District, 406 S.W.2d 249, 252 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1966, no writ); TEX.EDUC.CODE ANN. § 21.912(b) (Vernon Supp.1987); TEX.CIV. PRAC & REM.CODE ANN. § 101.051 (Vernon 1986). I agree with the majority that when the issue of “scope of employment” is joined at trial a fact issue exists. See, e.g. O’Haver v. Blair, 619 S.W.2d 467, 468-69 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ). However, this is not the case before us.
Stimpson’s case theory as pleaded, places Hendrick and Hunt’s actions within the scope of their employment. Stimpson’s original petition pleads: “[Stimpson’s employment agreement] was tortiously destroyed by the Defendant Plano Independent School District by and through the intentional and willful actions of Defendants Hendrick and Hunt.” (Emphasis added.) This allegation clearly complains of the wrongful actions of PISD, which Hen-drick and Hunt willfully performed in their official capacities. PISD’s actions being protected as a matter of law should also immunize any employees by and through which PISD’s actions were carried forth. I would affirm; the trial court ruled correctly.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759511. Public record. Not legal advice.