No. WW-0813 (1960).

• Case Date: March 22, 1960
• Court: Texas

Texas Attorney General Opinions 1960. No. WW-0813 (1960). 1March 22, 1960Mr. Franklin L. SmithCounty AttorneyCorpus Christi, TexasOpinion No. WW-813Re: May a county as an adjunct to the operation of a vertical lift bridge over a navigable deep water channel, purchase public liability insurance to cover damages or injuries resulting from its tortious acts committed in the operation thereof, such bridge being a part of a county road.Dear Mr. Smith:Your question for an opinion of the Attorney General has been received in this office as to whether a county, as an adjunct to the operation of a vertical lift bridge over a navigable deep water channel, may purchase liability insurance to cover damages or injuries resulting from its tortious acts committed in the operation of such bridge, said bridge being a part of a county road. The pertinent facts stated in your letter concerning this question are as follows:

"In connection with a port improvement and railroad re-location project currently under way in Nueces County, there has been constructed a vertical lift bridge, known as the Upper Harbor Bridge, over a portion of the Port of Corpus Christi. Such bridge was built jointly by Nueces County, the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County Navigation District, and the U. S. Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the bridge is to provide a means of crossing Corpus Christi's deep water port by both vehicular and railroad traffic. Such roadway is a county road. In order to permit ocean-going vessels to pass under such bridge, it is raised to a height of 129 feet; it is then lowered again and passage of vehicular and railroad traffic resumes."

2

"...

"A question has arisen concerning the legality of the purchase of such liability insurance by Nueces County, because, of course, the county ordinarily is immune from liability for damages resulting from its tortious acts. However, in view of the fact that the operation of this bridge would subject Nueces County to the jurisdiction of the admiralty court, it appears to me that the principle of governmental immunity does not apply."

Regardless of the fact that Texas Courts have consistently held that the State, a county, or any political subdivision of the State, other than cities, are not liable for the tortious acts of its officers, agencies and employees committed in the exercise of governmental functions, and that there is a total and absolute absence of liability on the part of the State or any of its subdivisions for an action in tort, unless specifically provided by statute, [Miller v. El Paso County. 156 S. W. 2d 1000; Orndorff v. State, ex rel McNeal], 108 S. W. 2d 206 (Civ. App. 1937, error ref.)/ it is the opinion of this Department that a county may be liable for its torts in a Court of Admiralty where an Admiralty Court has jurisdiction. "Admiralty" as defined in 2 Corpus Juris Secundum 64, Admiralty Law, Section I, Subsection 1, is that branch or department of jurisprudence which relates to and regulates maritime property, affairs and transactions, whether civil or criminal. In a more limited sense, it is the tribunal exercising jurisdiction over maritime causes and administering the maritime law by a procedure peculiar to itself and distinct from that followed by courts...