This may win me the prize for stupidest question posted, but I will post any way.

Precinct hand runs into his own vehicle while operating maintainer.

County insurance does not cover because hand is a "covered person" under the insurance, and a covered person cannot collect for damages to a covered person's property under the policy.

If this employee were to sue the county, he would essentially be suing himself, because the county would only be liable, if at all, under the theory of respondeat superior (coupled with the Tort Claims Act provision regarding motor-driven vehicles) for his actions.

It seems absurd to me that someone could sue himself, but I have not been able to find either a case or any other authority to that effect. Perhaps it is just common sense.

I have looked in every book that I can think of, and I have searched every way I can think of on Lexis, and now I submit this issue to the learned and astute minds that frequent this forum.

We were taught that litigating with yourself could lead to dire consequences.

In all seriousness, this seems to be one of those questions yielding little authority because the answer should be so obvious. As I think about it, the clearest idea I have is that the claimant can't demonstrate standing. That is, there cannot, logically, be an actual case or controversy involving a plaintiff's injury fairly traceable to a defendant's act or omission unless multiple personality disorder builds the bridge. The idea would be akin to the conspiracy principle that a person or entity cannot conspire with himself or itself.

But even if, by some weird stretch, the county was parsed out as a defendant to convey standing, the facts you suggest would bar recovery of tort damages on the basis of proportionate responsibility. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code secs. 33.001-.002.

[This message was edited by Scott Brumley on 03-31-10 at .]

As a basic matter, I'm struggling to come up with a cause that this employee could sue under. There's no intentional tort here. If the suit alleges that the equipment was being operated negligently then you've got a contributory negligence issue. I guess the employee could allege negligent hiring, but then I'm sure his boss could remedy THAT issue pretty quickly...

Thanks for the input. I thought there might be a case out there somewhere. I had the thought of proportionate responsibility as well.

I couldn't decide if it is a standing issue, or just a defensive one.

From just a quick search, you might look at some of the following cases for language (some of it, admittedly, dicta) that might be helpful:

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Goudeau, 272 S.W.3d 603, 609 (Tex. 2008) ("We agree of course with the dissent that no person may sue himself.")

City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466, 473-74 (Tex. 2007) ("And while cities are clearly subdivisions of the State, that fact alone determines the question before us only if an entity can sue itself - a proposition that makes little sense.")

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 216 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2006, no pet.) ("Because a person cannot sue himself for damages, that person's insurer, who stands in the person's shoes for subrogation purposes, cannot sue the person either.")

Finally, at least Justice Hecht seems to agree that the prospect of a person suing himself implicates an insurmountable lack of justiciability based on standing. See Employees Retirement Sys. of Tex. v. Duenez, 288 S.W.3d 905, 912 (Tex. 2009) (Hecht, J., dissenting) ("But a party's dispute with itself is nonjusticiable. There is much argument with citations of many cases to establish the long-recognized principle that no person may sue himself. Properly understood the general principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. They do not engage in the acadmemic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves. The court of appeals should have dismissed this interlocutory appeal.") (citing Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-46 (Tex. 1993) for proposition that standing, as a matter of subject matter jurisdiciton, may be raised for the first time on appeal).

And closing arguments....

There is no waiver of immunity for the county under the tort claims act unless the employee would be liable to the claimant (himself) under Texas law. (Civ. Prac & Rem. Code 101.021).