§ 101.057.Civil Disobedience and Certain Intentional Torts

Two exclusions in one section, and the second removes an entire category of claim.

The chapter does not apply to a claim based on an injury or death connected with any act or omission arising out of civil disobedience, riot, insurrection, or rebellion; or arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort, including a tort involving disciplinary action by school authorities.

The intentional tort exclusion is the one that matters. Its effect is that a governmental unit is not liable under the Act for an employee's intentional wrongdoing — and the Act is the only route, since immunity is waived only to the extent the chapter creates liability.

The consequence is stark. A claim that an officer used excessive force is a claim for assault and battery, and it is excluded. A claim of wrongful detention is false imprisonment, and it is excluded. Those claims proceed against Texas governmental units, if at all, under federal civil rights law rather than under this chapter.

"Or any other intentional tort" makes the list illustrative. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and conversion are equally outside the Act.

The recurring litigation is over characterisation: whether a claim pleaded as negligent supervision or negligent training is in substance a claim arising out of an intentional tort. The phrase "arising out of" is what defeats the repleading, since a negligence theory built on an assault still arises out of the assault.

The school discipline clause confirms that disciplinary action by school authorities falls within the intentional tort exclusion — a point the separate school district exclusion largely covers already.