Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVERSELLERS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Honorable C. C. Randle 3*
.--
County Attorney ! i
Ellis County 1\ \:
Waxahachle, Texas
/ -1; 4
Dear Sir: A:tentlonr Mr. F. L. ~~ZSOZI ‘,.
Assistant County e&ttorney
--_.
Opinion Ro. O-6182 "\ '\,*>,:'
Fl0: Use of School bus .‘fm extra- %’
curricular activities, and
related. queq;lpns. i
1”
.F.. .~
Reference lJ.made to your letter of August
28, 1944, which Is as,,folJowsr -,L+Q
~..
"We vi11 appreciite your opinion,
‘.. ‘. !
“1. *‘Do the members of the sohool
board,welther officially or personally, have
any llablllty for operation of sohool buses
on extra-curricular activities, such as ath-
letlc trips,otc?
\ I
, '~._.
“2. Does the bus driver’s statutory
bond apply when the bus Is being driven on
mlssfons~described In question above?
‘*,“T. Could the school board legally
buy, from non-tax funds, llablllty and property
damage Insurance protecting the school board
and the bus drivers against its liability arls-
lng from outside activities menr.loned In
Question So. l?”
Ron. C. C. Randle - Page 2
It Is veil settled that a school district Is
not llnble for the torts of Its agents or employees vhloh are
consultted in the performance of a governmental function.
School trusteis are vested under our laws with
broad powers In the control and management of schools. They
are oharged with the promotion of eduuatlon vlthin their re-
spective dlstrlots, and in the sbaenac of statutory llmlta-
tlons they are vested vlth large dlscrotion In thr exrrciro
of their povorr of admlnlstratlon. state Line School Distriut
va, Fame11 School DIstrIct, 48 9. ii. (2) 616.
It Is recognized generally in this State that
athletic oontests, interscholastic league meetlngs, and other
extra-curricular activities have become a necessary and lnte-
gral part of our educational system, The plena for modern
school plants have been designed vith the vlev of providing
proper faollitles for the furtherance of this program. The use
of a school bus in aid of these aotivltles has been deemed
essentlal,ln many instance8, to equallre the opportunltlea of
pupils who, In the absence of such use, oould not participate.
It follows that the use of a school bus under
such circumstances is but the performsme of a governmental
function, and in the absence of an abuse of discretion on the
part of the trustees, they are not legally personally liable
for the operation of the bus.
The bond executed by the school bus driver In
accordanoe with the provlslons of Art1018 26878, V. A. C. S.,
1s made for the benefit of the children to be transported.
Robinson v. Draper, 133 Tex. 280, 127 S. W. (2) 181. The
statutory bond of the bus driver would apply vhan the bus Is
being driven on euch mlsslon provided the driver’s contract
with the school board, and on which the bond is based, obll-
gates him to drive the bus on these ocaasions.
In response to your third question, this is to
advise that this department has held in Opinion No. O-1418 that
public funds could not be used to pay premiums on insurance
policies covering school busses for the protection of third
parLies against damages for which Lhe school district itself
could not be held liable. We concur in such holding, and are of
the opinion that this includes any public fund, vhkhsr it be
tax or non-cnx,
804
Bon. C. C. Randlo - Page 3
We trust that this gives you the information
desired.
YOUrI' VOW tNlg
JWRrBT