A Texas state appeals court has affirmed that a school district should not be held liable for an accident a spectator suffered when she fell and broke her leg at the district’s stadium during a football game.
The court specifically concluded that the fact that the district was renting the stadium to schools from another school district when the accident occurred does not constitute a proprietary act, which is a necessary threshold for the district to be held liable. Rather, it was an act of “cooperative sharing of resources among three school districts.”
The incident occurred on December 5, 2003 at a high school football playoff game between Gilmer High School and Atlanta High School, two public schools within the State of Texas. Tyler Independent School District (TISD) provided the venue for the event, renting their football stadium, Trinity Mother Frances Rose Stadium, to the two schools. During that event, plaintiff Bridget Fowler slipped and fell, breaking her leg.
On December 1, 2005, the Fowlers sued TISD, alleging that the stadium was in an unreasonably dangerous condition at the time of the football game and that TISD had failed to properly inspect and maintain the stadium and to provide adequate warnings of the stadium’s unsafe condition. On October 3, 2006, TISD filed a plea to the jurisdiction, alleging sovereign immunity from suit. The trial court granted TISD’s plea, which spawned an appeal.
The court began its analysis by reviewing the application of sovereign immunity which typically insulates a school district, considered a governmental unit, from liability. See LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett Indep. Sch. Dist., 835 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex. 1992). The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suit against the State unless the State has given consent to be sued. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Brownsville Navigation Dist., 453 S.W.2d 812, 814 (Tex. 1970).
“Here, the Fowlers do not claim that sovereign immunity from suit has been waived by consent. Instead, because TISD was renting its stadium to the two high schools, the Fowlers argue that TISD was acting in a proprietary capacity at the time of Bridget Fowler’s injury, and therefore was not protected by sovereign immunity from suit.”
The appeals court turned to various case law, including a Texas Supreme Court opinion more than a century old –City of Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 118, 127 (1884) – which established a narrow parameters for determining that governmental body was acting in a proprietary fashion.
“In this case, TISD is a public school district and, thus, a purely governmental agency that exercises only such powers as are delegated to it by the State of Texas. See Braun, 114 S.W.2d at 950; Dillard, 806 S.W.2d at 594; Gravely, 701 S.W.2d at 957. As such, it could not, as a matter of law, have been acting in a sufficiently proprietary capacity to shed its sovereign immunity at the time of Bridget Fowler’s injury. See id.”
The appeals court went on to elaborate.
“The primary purpose of interscholastic athletic programs is the educational benefit accruing to the students involved in these programs. Garza ex rel. Garza v. Edinburg Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 576 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex. Civ. App.–Corpus Christi 1979, no writ). Nothing could be more in tune with the governmental function of school districts, providing education benefitting the State of Texas. Id. The playoff game in question here was part of a statewide interscholastic athletic program. Like their regular season counterparts, playoff games carry as their primary purpose the education of the students involved. See id.; see also Gravely, 701 S.W.2d at 957. Further, because such playoff games educate students, they, as part of the statewide public school system, serve to benefit the State of Texas in the same way as any other public educational activity. See Gravely, 701 S.W.2d at 957; Garza, 576 S.W.2d at 918.
“The fact that TISD rented the stadium in question does not affect this reasoning. This was not a proprietary act but a cooperative sharing of resources among three school districts. These districts were essentially sharing their resources in a way that better allocated them for the benefit of the statewide public school system. As a result of this allocation, TISD was provided additional funds to further its mission of education while the other districts were provided a venue for an interscholastic school function, a primarily educational event. Therefore, even if it were possible for TISD to act in a proprietary capacity, it was not doing so at the time of the injury in question. See Braun, 114 S.W.2d at 949-50; Gravely, 701 S.W.2d at 957; Garza, 576 S.W.2d at 918. We overrule the Fowlers’ sole issue.”
Bridget Fowler And Phil Fowler v. Tyler Independent School District; Ct.App.Tex;12th Dist; NO. 12-07-00085-CV; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6433; 8/15/07
