Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas
April 9, 1979
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Honorable Gibson D. (Gibl Lewis Opinion No. Mw-10 Chairman
House Committee on Re: Whether a regional transit authority established under article Intergovernmental Affairs State Capitol lllSx, V.T.C.S., is covered by the Tort Claims Act Austin, Texas Dear Representative Lewis:
You have requested our opinion as to whether the Texas Tort Clalms Act, article.625249, V.T.C.S., his applicable to a regional transit authority created pursuant toarticle lll6x, V.T.C.S. The Tort Claims Act applies to every “unit of government” in the state, section 3, but it is not applicable “to any proprietary function of a municipality.” Section 16(a). You ask whether a regional transit authority falls within the exception of section 16. Since it is our view that a’reglonal transit authority does not exercise any proprietary functicn, we need not address the question of whether it may be deemed a “municipality” for purposes of article 6252-B.
It is clear that a regional transit authority created pursuant to article lll6x, defined as a “public body corporate and politic,” section 6(a), ls a “unit of government” within the meaning of the Tort Claims Act. Section S(a) of article lll6x provides that a duly created authority exercises public and essential governmental functions, [and has] all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this Act, including, but not limited to, the following. . . : . . . .
(e) . . . the power to acquire, construct, complete, develcp, own, operate and maintain a [rapid transit] system or systems within its boundaries . . .
(Emphasis added). Under the language of the statute, then, the operation a rapid transit system by an authority is described as a “governmental function.” *2 - Page Two (NW-101
In City of Corsicana v. Wren, 317 B.W.2d 516 (Tex. 1956), the Supreme Court considered a statute containing a legislative declaration that a municipality’s operation an airport is a governmental functicn. The court held that, so long as
the legislative classification as governmental (or nongovernmental) CnMot be called arbitrary or clearly at vah3nCe with ‘well established and well defined’ law on the subject, the classification ought to be respected by the courts.
317 S.W.2d at 520. We do not believe that the classification at issue here mav be so labeled. & Imperial Production Corp. v. City of Sweetwater, 210 P.2d 917 (5th Ci;. lSS4); Braun v. Trustees of Victoria Independent School District, ll4 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Tex. Clv. App Ban Antonio 1936, writ ref’d); Garaa v. Bdinburg Consolidated School District, 576 S.W:2d916 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1979); Pontarelli Trust v. City of McAllen, 465 B.W.2d 604 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1971, no writ). In our opinion, Wren compels the conclusion that the legislature is authorized to classify the powers- regional transit authority as exclusively governmental. As a result, it is our view that the Tort Claims Act is applicable to a regional transit authority created pursuant to article lll6x.
SUMMARY The Texas Tort Claims Act, article 6252-19, V.T.C.B., is applicable to a regional transit authority created pursuant to article lll6x, V.T.C.S.
MARK WHITE
Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
TED L. HARTLEY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath, Chairman
David B. Brooks *3 - Page Three (Mw-10)
Rick Gilpin William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood