OPINION
LATTIMORE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment for appellee, the State of Texas, ordering appellants, Avis and Bobby C. Dris-kill, take nothing. The Driskills have perfected this appeal.
We affirm.
Avis Driskill was injured when she was struck by a car driven by Debra Cearnal, an employee of the Texas Comptroller’s Office. The Driskills settled their claims against Cearnal, and signed a release which discharged Cearnal, but reserved the Driskill’s cause of action against the State. The Driskills then filed suit against the State alleging Cearnal was acting in the scope of her employment. The State filed a motion for summary judgment asserting it was immune from suit under the Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ch. 101 (Vernon 1986 and Vernon Supp.1989) (“Act”), because:
1. Cearnal was not named as a party to the suit and any claim against Cearnal would be barred by limitations,
2. the release of the Driskills’ claim against Cearnal acted as a release of the State,
3. Cearnal would not be personally liable to the Driskills,
4. the Driskills had already recovered their damages from Cearnal, and
5. the State is immune for negligent acts of its employees arising out of the assessment or collection of taxes.
The first four grounds for summary judgment are interrelated in that each ground presents a legal argument that the Driskills cannot recover from the State after releasing Cearnal. There are no disputed issues of fact which are material to the grounds for summary judgment. It is undisputed that the Driskills released Cear-nal and that Cearnal was acting in the scope of her employment.
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment without specifying on which ground the court relied. We must affirm the trial court’s judgment if any one of the five grounds is sufficient to support the order. Tilotta v. Goodall, 752 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ den.). The Driskills raise eleven points of error contending none of the five grounds support the judgment.
Ground No. 1. Cearnal was not named as a party to the suit and any claim against Cearnal would be barred by limitations.
[947]*947In their first point of error, the Driskills contend the first ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court because a cause of action exists against the State for the negligent acts of the employee even though the employee was not named as a party. The pleadings of a suit brought under the Act must name as defendant the governmental unit against which liability is to be established. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. sec. 101.102(b). A governmental unit is liable for personal injury caused by the negligence of an employee acting within the scope of his employment if the employee would be personally liable under Texas law. Id. at sec. 101.021. Nothing in these provisions indicate a plaintiff must join the negligent State employee as a codefendant, and the State has not cited any authority for this novel idea. The Driskills’ first point of error is sustained.
Ground No. 2. The release of the Driskills’ claim against Cearnal acted as a release of the State.
In their second, third, and fourth points of error, the Driskills contend the second ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court because release of the State employee does not release the Driskills’ cause of action against the State. The State has waived governmental immunity for personal injury arising from the use of a motor vehicle driven by an employee acting within the scope of her employment. Id. at 101.021(1)(A). We discuss the relevant exception to this waiver of liability in our discussion of the fifth ground for summary judgment. Where the Act waives governmental immunity, “the general law of this State will apply to litigants in the same manner it would apply to individuals.” City of Denton v. Mathes, 528 S.W.2d 625, 632 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Settlement with and release of an employee does not bar a subsequent suit against the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior so long as the plaintiff's damages have not been fully satisfied. Knutson v. Morton Foods, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 805, 806-07 (Tex. 1980). Therefore, release of Cearnal does not operate to release the State. Cf. City of Houston v. Aber, 770 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, n.w.h.) (plaintiff may recover from city after settling with employee).
The State makes two arguments to support their position that we should not follow Knutson. First, the State contends the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State. The State cites Welch v. State, 148 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1941, writ ref’d) (“[T]he doctrine of respondeat superior has no application whatever to the State, its exemption being based on its sovereign character.”). Welch was decided before the legislature enacted the Act. Where the Act waives governmental immunity, respondeat superior will apply to the State. Davis v. County of Lubbock, 486 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1972, no writ) (the State is “exempt from the responsibilities of respondeat superior except to the extent that immunity has been waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act.”).
Second, the State contends we are not bound by Knutson because its discussion of respondeat superior is dicta. Even if it is dicta, we find it persuasive. We hold the Driskills did not release their cause of action against the State when they released Cearnal. The Driskills’ third and fourth points of error are sustained.
Ground No. 3. Cearnal would not be personally liable to the Driskills.
In their fifth and sixth points of error the Driskills contend the third ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court. The Act provides the State may be liable for negligent acts of an employee if the damage arises from use of a motor vehicle and the employee “would be personally liable under Texas law.” TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. sec. 101.021(1). The State contends the Driskills cannot establish Cearnal “would be” liable because Cearnal is no longer liable due to the settlement with and release by the Driskills. As we discussed in the first point of error, section 101.021(1) does not require the [948]*948State employee to be found liable as a codefendant, and it is not relevant that the cause of action against Cearnal is barred by limitation. It is likewise irrelevant that the cause of action against Cearnal is barred by release. The Driskills’ fifth and sixth points of error are sustained.
Ground No. 4- The Driskills had already recovered their damages from Cearnal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
LATTIMORE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment for appellee, the State of Texas, ordering appellants, Avis and Bobby C. Dris-kill, take nothing. The Driskills have perfected this appeal.
We affirm.
Avis Driskill was injured when she was struck by a car driven by Debra Cearnal, an employee of the Texas Comptroller’s Office. The Driskills settled their claims against Cearnal, and signed a release which discharged Cearnal, but reserved the Driskill’s cause of action against the State. The Driskills then filed suit against the State alleging Cearnal was acting in the scope of her employment. The State filed a motion for summary judgment asserting it was immune from suit under the Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ch. 101 (Vernon 1986 and Vernon Supp.1989) (“Act”), because:
1. Cearnal was not named as a party to the suit and any claim against Cearnal would be barred by limitations,
2. the release of the Driskills’ claim against Cearnal acted as a release of the State,
3. Cearnal would not be personally liable to the Driskills,
4. the Driskills had already recovered their damages from Cearnal, and
5. the State is immune for negligent acts of its employees arising out of the assessment or collection of taxes.
The first four grounds for summary judgment are interrelated in that each ground presents a legal argument that the Driskills cannot recover from the State after releasing Cearnal. There are no disputed issues of fact which are material to the grounds for summary judgment. It is undisputed that the Driskills released Cear-nal and that Cearnal was acting in the scope of her employment.
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment without specifying on which ground the court relied. We must affirm the trial court’s judgment if any one of the five grounds is sufficient to support the order. Tilotta v. Goodall, 752 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ den.). The Driskills raise eleven points of error contending none of the five grounds support the judgment.
Ground No. 1. Cearnal was not named as a party to the suit and any claim against Cearnal would be barred by limitations.
[947]*947In their first point of error, the Driskills contend the first ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court because a cause of action exists against the State for the negligent acts of the employee even though the employee was not named as a party. The pleadings of a suit brought under the Act must name as defendant the governmental unit against which liability is to be established. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. sec. 101.102(b). A governmental unit is liable for personal injury caused by the negligence of an employee acting within the scope of his employment if the employee would be personally liable under Texas law. Id. at sec. 101.021. Nothing in these provisions indicate a plaintiff must join the negligent State employee as a codefendant, and the State has not cited any authority for this novel idea. The Driskills’ first point of error is sustained.
Ground No. 2. The release of the Driskills’ claim against Cearnal acted as a release of the State.
In their second, third, and fourth points of error, the Driskills contend the second ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court because release of the State employee does not release the Driskills’ cause of action against the State. The State has waived governmental immunity for personal injury arising from the use of a motor vehicle driven by an employee acting within the scope of her employment. Id. at 101.021(1)(A). We discuss the relevant exception to this waiver of liability in our discussion of the fifth ground for summary judgment. Where the Act waives governmental immunity, “the general law of this State will apply to litigants in the same manner it would apply to individuals.” City of Denton v. Mathes, 528 S.W.2d 625, 632 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Settlement with and release of an employee does not bar a subsequent suit against the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior so long as the plaintiff's damages have not been fully satisfied. Knutson v. Morton Foods, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 805, 806-07 (Tex. 1980). Therefore, release of Cearnal does not operate to release the State. Cf. City of Houston v. Aber, 770 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, n.w.h.) (plaintiff may recover from city after settling with employee).
The State makes two arguments to support their position that we should not follow Knutson. First, the State contends the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State. The State cites Welch v. State, 148 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1941, writ ref’d) (“[T]he doctrine of respondeat superior has no application whatever to the State, its exemption being based on its sovereign character.”). Welch was decided before the legislature enacted the Act. Where the Act waives governmental immunity, respondeat superior will apply to the State. Davis v. County of Lubbock, 486 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1972, no writ) (the State is “exempt from the responsibilities of respondeat superior except to the extent that immunity has been waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act.”).
Second, the State contends we are not bound by Knutson because its discussion of respondeat superior is dicta. Even if it is dicta, we find it persuasive. We hold the Driskills did not release their cause of action against the State when they released Cearnal. The Driskills’ third and fourth points of error are sustained.
Ground No. 3. Cearnal would not be personally liable to the Driskills.
In their fifth and sixth points of error the Driskills contend the third ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court. The Act provides the State may be liable for negligent acts of an employee if the damage arises from use of a motor vehicle and the employee “would be personally liable under Texas law.” TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. sec. 101.021(1). The State contends the Driskills cannot establish Cearnal “would be” liable because Cearnal is no longer liable due to the settlement with and release by the Driskills. As we discussed in the first point of error, section 101.021(1) does not require the [948]*948State employee to be found liable as a codefendant, and it is not relevant that the cause of action against Cearnal is barred by limitation. It is likewise irrelevant that the cause of action against Cearnal is barred by release. The Driskills’ fifth and sixth points of error are sustained.
Ground No. 4- The Driskills had already recovered their damages from Cearnal.
In their seventh, eighth, and ninth points of error, the Driskills contend the fourth ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court. The State does not contend the Driskills received full satisfaction of their damages when they settled with Cearnal, but the State argues the Driskills’ action against the State is barred by TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. sec. 101.106 which provides:
A judgment in an action or a settlement of a claim under this chapter bars any action involving the same subject matter by the claimant against the employee of the governmental unit whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.
Id. If the Driskills had settled their cause of action against the State, section 101.106 would bar an action against Cearnal. Section 101.106 does not bar an action against the State because the plain language of the statute does not allow such an interpretation. The Driskills’ seventh, eighth, and ninth points of error are sustained.
Ground No. 5. The State is immune for negligent acts of its employees arising out of the assessment or collection of taxes.
In their tenth and eleventh points of error, the Driskills contend the fifth ground in the motion for summary judgment will not support the judgment of the trial court. The Act waives governmental immunity for personal injury proximately caused by the negligent act of an employee acting within his scope of employment if the personal injury arises from the use of a motor-driven vehicle. Id. at sec. 101.021(1). However, this waiver of liability does not apply to a claim arising “in connection with assessment or collection of taxes by a governmental unit.” TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. sec. 101.065. Unless a statute is ambiguous, we must follow the clear language of the statute. Republic-Bank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex.1985). Before the accident, Cearnal was at a local business concerning their delinquent taxes. At the time of the accident, Cearnal was on her way to see another taxpayer to collect taxes or discuss collecting taxes. The State has not waived governmental immunity because Cearnal’s negligence, if any, is within section 101.055(l)’s statutory exception to the Act’s waiver of liability.
The Driskills contend section 101.055(1) does not apply to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. In effect, the Driskills contend section 101.055(1) creates an exception to the State’s waiver of liability in section 101.021(2), but does not create an exception to the State’s waiver of liability in section 101.021(1). We see no reason to make this distinction. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. sec. 101.051 creates statutory exception to the State’s waiver of liability relative to school districts and junior college districts, but section 101.051 clearly states the exception does not apply to motor vehicles. If the legislature had intended to so limit the scope of section 101.055(1), they would have so provided in the same plain language used in section 101.051.
One other court has construed section 101.055(1). Harris County v. Dowlearn, 489 S.W.2d 140, 146-47 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Dowlearn is not on point because it did not. involve a motor vehicle accident.
The Driskills’ tenth and eleventh points of error are overruled. The fifth ground for summary judgment is sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court. We affirm.
KELTNER, J., dissents.