Page 34 - November December 2019 TPA Journal
P. 34

for damages arising from action or inaction in       immunity.  This distinction is largely insignificant
        connection with an inmate activity, including        here because under the Texas Tort Claims Act a
        treatment activities, if the action or inaction was  governmental entity cannot be liable for the actions
        performed in an official capacity and was not        or inactions of its employees if the employees are
        performed with conscious indifference:               not liable for any reason, including their own
                                                             immunity.
        An individual listed in Subsection (c) of this article
        and the governmental entity that the individual      The statutes thus provide immunity from liability to
        serves as an officer or employee are not liable for  identified governmental individuals and entities for
        damages arising from an act or failure to act by the  damages that arise from their negligent acts or
        individual or governmental entity in connection      omissions in connection with covered programs and
        with a community service program or work             activities.  Bonner does not dispute that his lawsuit
        program established under this chapter or in         concerns a covered activity.  Nor does he deny that
        connection with an inmate, offender, or releasee     his allegations of negligence involve individuals
        programmatic or nonprogrammatic activity,            and entities named in these statutes.  Rather, Bonner
        including work, educational, and treatment           contends that the statutes do not apply because the
        activities, if the act or failure to act:            requisite connection between his allegations and the
                                                             covered activity does not exist.  He specifically
        (1) was performed pursuant to a court order or was   focuses on the County’s alleged omissions—its
        otherwise performed in an official capacity; and     failure to mark the chair as broken or remove it from

                                                             the jail—arguing that the damaged chair was not in
        (2) was not performed with conscious indifference
        for the safety of others.                            the multipurpose room as part of his medical
                                                             treatment but rather was there for another purpose.
        Section 497.096 similarly provides that county and   Bonner concludes that, as to these omissions, the
        sheriff’s department employees are not liable for    relevant connection does not exist, and the statutes
        damages arising from action or inaction in           do not apply.
        connection with an inmate or offender treatment
        activity if the action or inaction was not intentional,  …
        wilfully negligent or performed with conscious       The County argues that a legitimate connection
        indifference or reckless disregard:                  exists between its alleged acts and omissions and

                                                             Bonner’s medical treatment because Bonner would
        An employee [of the sheriff’s office or the county
        among others] . . . is not liable for damages arising  not have a claim for damages but for that
        from an act or failure to act in connection with     connection.  For example, the alleged omissions—
                                                             the failure to remove the chair or warn of its
        community service performed by an inmate
                                                             condition—were legally insignificant until they
        imprisoned in a facility operated by the department
                                                             intersected with Bonner’s medical treatment.  Had
        or in connection with an inmate or offender
        programmatic or nonprogrammatic activity,            these omissions not continued through to the time of
        including work, community service, educational,      Bonner’s treatment, Bonner would have no claim
                                                             for damages.  In short,  the omissions only lead to
        and treatment activities, if the act or failure to act
                                                             the alleged damages because of their connection to
        was not intentional, wilfully or wantonly negligent,
                                                             the medical visit.  Similarly, Bonner’s negligence
        or performed with conscious indifference or
        reckless disregard for the safety of others.         theory based on the continued use of the chair after
                                                             its defective condition was known necessarily
        In contrast to article 42.20, which explicitly applies  connects to the occasion of Bonner’s medical
        to individuals and the governmental entities they    encounter.  Because Bonner’s damages claim rests
        serve, section 497.096 speaks only to individual     on the County’s alleged negligent acts and
                                                             omissions intersecting with his medical treatment,


        30                www.texaspoliceassociation.com  •  866-997-8282              Texas Police Journal
   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39