Court looks at governmental immunity from suit for damages and injuries

In a recent case, a school bus driver working for the Houston Independent School District collided with another motorist while operating the bus. She suffered strains in her knees and sprains in her shoulders and lower back.

The driver brought a claim for temporary workers’ compensation disability benefits. The school district did not dispute that the driver’s injuries were compensable.

Read more: Injured party sues employer after employee falls asleep at the wheel

Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc., which was the school district’s third-party benefits administrator, paid the driver temporary workers’ compensation disability benefits until she reached maximum medical improvement.

The driver, who was medically cleared to return to work, failed to return. The school district ordered her to attend a meeting to discuss whether she had abandoned her job. It terminated her employment when she did not attend.

The driver sued the school district and the benefits administrator based on negligence. The school district alleged that, because it had governmental immunity from suit, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the negligence claim.

The Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) did not waive the school district’s immunity because the driver did not allege that one of its employees caused injuries due to the negligent use or operation of a motor vehicle, the school district argued. Indeed, the motorist who hit the school bus was not one of its employees, the school district added.

The trial court agreed with the school district’s arguments and dismissed the driver’s claims.

School district immune from suit

In the case of Mouton v. Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the judgment. The trial court correctly dismissed the school bus driver’s claims against the school district based on lack of jurisdiction, the appellate court said.

The driver did not allege damages or injury caused by a school district employee’s negligent use or operation of a motor vehicle. However, she argued that section 101.021(1) of the TTCA waived the school district’s immunity because she was an employee of the school district during the collision.

The appellate court rejected the driver’s argument. According to the appellate court, the plain meaning of the text in section 101.021(1) waived governmental immunity from suit for damages and injuries:

• caused by an employee’s wrongful act or omission or negligence within their scope of employment
• arising from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle

If immunity was waived, the employee would be personally liable, the appellate court said. As relevant to this case, the language in section 101.021 did not show any legislative intent to waive governmental immunity under the circumstances that the driver alleged, the appellate court concluded.

Lastly, the driver claimed that the school district committed various constitutional violations and retaliated against her by wrongfully terminating her employment. However, the driver’s petition failed to allege these claims and only once asserted wrongful termination, the appellate court noted.

Thus, the appellate court decided not to tackle whether governmental immunity was waived in relation to these issues.