Ex parte Laci Watson et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Yolanda Givan, as personal representative of the estate of Dominic Ware v. Laci Watson et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080368 Ex p a r t e L a c i Watson e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Yolanda Givan, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f D o m i n i c Ware v. Laci Watson e t a l . ) (Jefferson C i r c u i t Court, SMITH, Justice. Laci Eubanks CV-07-900878) Watson, Erica (hereinafter Jackson, referred 1 Toni to Dollar, collectively and Tracey as " t h e 1080368 defendants") directing judgment in petition this the Jefferson i n their favor Court Circuit Ware. as p e r s o n a l We d e n y the p e t i t i o n the p e t i t i o n as t o D o l l a r July Hospital discovered head. in 27, of to enter mandamus a summary of State-agent immunity them of the estate by Yolanda of Dominic as t o Watson and J a c k s o n and g r a n t and Eubanks. Dominic Birmingham writ against and P r o c e d u r a l 2005, bruising Sandra brought representative Facts On Court on t h e b a s i s a wrongful-death action Givan, for a after History was taken to h i s mother, and s w e l l i n g and h e r b o y f r i e n d , around Children's Sandra Dominic's Jorge Carter, Ware, eyes and who w e r e t h e o n l y o n e s a t home w i t h D o m i n i c i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e h e was t a k e n to the hospital, reported head under t h e headboard Children's Jefferson DHR assigned investigator, Dominic's Dominic County Watson, Department a have caught h i s A s o c i a l worker at of suspected c h i l d abuse t o o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"). child-abuse-and-neglect to investigate the allegation arriving at the hospital, eyes swollen, was may of Sandra's bed. H o s p i t a l made a r e p o r t the Upon that that 2 Watson ("CA/N") of c h i l d abuse. saw t h a t one o f he h a d a b r u i s e under t h e 1080368 other eye, and that he did not find plausible Watson cause had to of Dominic's had bruises injuries. been abused, but she Watson On J u l y 28, 2005, Watson c o n d u c t e d and Sandra Dominic, On the to but Plan" PDISP limited also J u l y 29, be only ("PDISP") meeting. to Sandra's Under supervised three meeting; that contact other children, juvenile at submit ordered custody court the to visitation. however, remained ordered Adolescent a of him be Substance assessment; and treatment d i r e c t e d by as Custody with Decision Carter plan, with and Carter not only found placed Dominic with permitted of Sandra. conducted i n the his Sandra other three A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Sandra to submit to a drug screen psychological to as children. g r e a t - g r a n d m o t h e r , M a t t i e Ware, and supervised the Dominic a "Placement 2 0 0 5 , a s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g was dependent, of that J e f f e r s o n County J u v e n i l e C o u r t ; that court maternal day were explanation ears. abuser. Service the his u n a b l e t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of attended of concluded identity Sandra both Sandra's the Individualized the was on Abuse evaluation comply the with Program and the therapist. 3 a ("ASAP"); to substance-abuse recommendations DHR that was ordered for to 1080368 "closely the supervise" juvenile court's court addressing with the service for the p a r t i e s ' terms the 7, The test was manager the Treatment the test. The later, revealed the by According TASC, W a t s o n drug-test forwarded request court's report the p a r t i e s ' and order, results, that to Sandra any results. the the of for the compliance individualized was scheduled Sandra underwent University Alternative defendants a s s e r t t h a t the not order terms J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y c o u r t h o u s e on J u l y 2 9 , program. for and a additional hearing administered Birmingham's ("TASC") An prepare the 2006. In accordance w i t h drug t e s t at the to court's ("ISPs"). February and Dominic's welfare of plans order compliance with of to for Meredith accompanied of at Communities Currie, program drug w h i c h were c o m p l e t e d a few days used results them, of and cocaine. to a the had Sandra 2005. Alabama Safer a However, Sandra's drug t e s t the defendants did the were not 1 A c c o r d i n g to her a f f i d a v i t , A n i t a Turner, the substancea b u s e - c o u n s e l o r l i a i s o n f o r the J e f f e r s o n - B l o u n t - S t . Clair Mental Health/Mental R e t a r d a t i o n A u t h o r i t y , p i c k e d up drugt e s t r e s u l t s f o r J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y as a p a r t o f h e r d u t i e s . T u r n e r t e s t i f i e d s h e w o u l d p i c k up t h e r e s u l t s a n d forward only positive results to the worker or supervisor who requested drug t e s t i n g . Notably, the documentation from the d r u g - t e s t r e s u l t s r e c e i v e d on J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , show r e s u l t s f o r 1 4 1080368 According directing how to Watson, drug-test there results were were county Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s assert that was a n " u n w r i t t e n positive there results were forwarded no State t o be policies received office. DHR a The d e f e n d a n t s p o l i c y " a t DHR t h a t to by only investigators. 2 However, t h a t e v i d e n c e i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that all DHR, i n c l u d i n g Watson drug-test Watson results, testified and Jackson, would not j u s t the p o s i t i v e that s h e was a u t h o r i z e d have received ones. to obtain the a " S h a r o n W a r e " b u t no r e s u l t s f o r a " S a n d r a W a r e . " Turner a s s e r t e d t h a t s h e was n o t p r o v i d e d a n y d r u g - t e s t r e s u l t s f o r S a n d r a Ware o n J u l y 2 9, 2005. Currie confirmed i n her deposition testimony that the documentation f o r the drug-test r e s u l t s r e c e i v e d on J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , i d e n t i f i e d " S h a r o n W a r e " b u t n o t " S a n d r a Ware." C u r r i e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was n o t a w a r e o f a n y w r i t t e n p o l i c y a t DHR r e g a r d i n g drug-test r e s u l t s a n d t h a t s h e d i d n o t know a n y o f t h e p r o t o c o l s DHR h a d w i t h T u r n e r as t h e l i a i s o n . C u r r i e t e s t i f i e d , however, t h a t t h e p o l i c y o f TASC was t o f o r w a r d a l l r e s u l t s , b o t h p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e , t o DHR. Included i n the materials submitted to t h i s Court are a f f i d a v i t s f r o m DHR e m p l o y e e s C l a r e n c e Rowe, E u b a n k s , T u r n e r , D o l l a r , Watson, and Jackson t h a t i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g ( o r substantially similar) language: 2 "The p r a c t i c e i n t h e W e s t R e g i o n o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s was t h a t i f y o u d i d not r e c e i v e t h e r e s u l t s , t h e r e s u l t s were presumed t o b e n e g a t i v e . T h e r e i s no A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s p o l i c y t h a t d i r e c t s how d r u g t e s t s r e s u l t s a r e t o be r e c e i v e d b y a c o u n t y o f f i c e like J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s . " 5 1080368 drug-test so. r e s u l t s b u t t h a t i t was n o t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o do Watson completing her stated that responsibilities involved t h e CA/N i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t u r n i n g o v e r t h e f i l e t o s u p e r v i s o r , Eubanks. would forward the f i l e "ongoing service After the hearing Dominic apprised t o Watson, Eubanks i n t u r n t o D o l l a r , who s u p e r v i s e d Jackson, the 3 on F e b r u a r y 7, 2 0 0 6 , t h e j u v e n i l e of the f a c t Watson According worker." returned 3 her to h i s mother. that, among The j u v e n i l e c o u r t other things, was n o t Sandra testified: "Q. [ B y G i v a n ' s a t t o r n e y : ] And what does t h a t mean when y o u p r e p a r e t h e c a s e t o b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o the ongoing w o r k e r ? "A. I t j u s t means t h a t I made s u r e t h a t t h e o r d e r was i n t h e f i l e , t h e o t h e r p a p e r w o r k was i n t h e r e , c o p i e s o f t h e ... [ t ] r a n s f e r n a r r a t i v e , t h e court order, ... t h e p i c k - u p orders, ... a n y home e v a l u a t i o n s t h a t w e r e d o n e a n d ... t h e P D I S P a n d ... i f t h e c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d i n p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y t h e r e ' s a l s o some o t h e r f o r m s a n d I d o n ' t r e c a l l t h e names o f t h e f o r m s . fi "Q. worker? And then this i s provided to the ongoing "A. I p r o v i d e i t t o my s u p e r v i s o r ... [ T h e n ] [ s ] h e s e n d s i t t o t h e o n g o i n g [Dollar]." 6 court [Eubanks]. supervisor had 1080368 tested p o s i t i v e for cocaine On was March again injuries injury 11, following to Children's h i s head, back, caused day. Dominic's J u l y 29, 2006, D o m i n i c , admitted to on by His and blunt-force injuries maternal had who 2005. was then Hospital months old, i n Birmingham with extremities, trauma. been 16 including brain Dominic inflicted grandmother, died by Carter. Yolanda Givan, personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Dominic's e s t a t e , f i l e d a alleging a wrongful-death claim against in individual their Eubanks; Jackson's Jackson, the complaint ongoing Dollar. service 4 as complaint f o l l o w i n g persons c a p a c i t i e s : Watson; Watson's supervisor, Givan's the the worker supervisor, at DHR; and 5 specifically alleged that "[the defendants] allowed Dominic Ware to be r e t u r n e d t o t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s m o t h e r , S a n d r a Ware, i n F e b r u a r y 2006 w i t h o u t f i r s t o b t a i n i n g t h e r e s u l t s of Sandra Ware's c o u r t o r d e r e d d r u g t e s t , and by doing s o , a f f i r m a t i v e l y p l a c e d D o m i n i c Ware i n a p o s i t i o n o f d a n g e r t h a t he w o u l d n o t h a v e otherwise C a r t e r u l t i m a t e l y was c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l murder f o r k i l l i n g D o m i n i c ; he was sentenced to l i f e i n p r i s o n without the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 5 ) , A l a . C o d e 1 975. 4 Givan's complaint also named as defendants Angela T a n d e e r , t h e C h i l d W e l f a r e D i r e c t o r f o r DHR, and Dollar's s u p e r v i s o r , C l a r e n c e Rowe; however, the c l a i m s a g a i n s t them were u l t i m a t e l y d i s m i s s e d . 5 7 1080368 faced." In addition drug-test that results, the violated or activities Finally, acts alleged or alleged generally omissions or regulations proximately causing of which of t h i s State regulating the death." the defendants "acted i n bad that [Dominic's] beyond fraudulently, or under regarding the a mistaken faith, interpretation of the proximately causing [Dominic's] death." summary discovery judgment was on conducted, the basis the defendants that, c o u l d n o t " p r o v i d e any e v i d e n c e t h a t follow applicable procedures employees or of Furthermore, law that the or they Alabama wilfully, they acted authority, Department 8 to practices or their authority as of Human asserted the defendants a mistaken Givan failed outside fraudulently, or under asserted, rules, t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n maliciously, moved f o r the defendants departmental c o u l d n o t p r o v i d e any e v i d e n c e t h a t their also f o r the purpose maliciously, After a complaint rules, complaint authority allegation "committed laws, o f DHR, wilfully, specific Givan's promulgated the [their] the defendants specific enacted law, to i n bad Resources." that Givan had " a c t e d faith, interpretation beyond of law." 1080368 F i n a l l y , the defendants' summary-judgment motion asserted that " [ t ] h e most i m p o r t a n t p o i n t o f l a w i n t h i s case i s t h a t [ G i v a n ] has n o t s t a t e d a cause o f a c t i o n i n any of t h e c o m p l a i n t s . T h e S t a t e h a d no l e g a l d u t y t o p r o t e c t the c h i l d at the time of h i s death because the child was not i n the State's custody, but r a t h e r , was i n t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s m o t h e r . " Givan filed opposition to briefs and materials summary-judgment the defendants' evidentiary motion. a d d i t i o n to her s p e c i f i c a l l e g a t i o n that the defendants to retrieve Givan's motion m a t e r i a l s and e v i d e n c e alleged defendants assertion In they of State-agent response, were opposition allegations "new the the defeated other motion test, summary-judgment the by t h e defendants' immunity. filed allegations" than a motion to strike i n the m a t e r i a l s f i l e d the a l l e g a t i o n s to s t r i k e argued that the a hearing, the t r i a l defendants' t h a t t h e "new t o amend G i v a n ' s 9 in defendants The allegations" complaint. court, without summary-judgment what i . e . , the s p e c i f i c and t o r e p o r t t h e d r u g - t e s t r e s u l t s . attempt In failed drug acts or omissions t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n , w e r e an u n t i m e l y After argued, the defendants to r e t r i e v e defendants' denied Givan of Sandra's opposing a number o f s p e c i f i c that, said failed and t o r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s in motion explanation, and denied 1080368 t h e i r motion to s t r i k e . On certified appeal the for permissive following defendants are agent ordered be the immunity December 11, controlling entitled as to as the a petition facts has in petition for law: App. P., "Whether the a writ the case." This for permission of mandamus, to of Review stated: "'"While the g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t the d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s not r e v i e w a b l e , the e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t the d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n g r o u n d e d on a c l a i m o f i m m u n i t y i s r e v i e w a b l e by p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus. Ex p a r t e P u r v i s , 689 So. 2d 794 ( A l a . 1996) .... "'"Summary judgment is appropriate o n l y when ' t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o a n y m a t e r i a l f a c t a n d ... t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law.' R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., Y o u n g v . L a Q u i n t a I n n s , I n c . , 682 So. 2d 402 ( A l a . 1996). A court considering a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t w i l l v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to the nonmoving p a r t y , Hurst v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 675 So. 2d 397 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , Fuqua v. I n g e r s o l l - R a n d Co., 591 So. 2 d 486 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) ; w i l l accord the nonmoving p a r t y a l l reasonable f a v o r a b l e i n f e r e n c e s from the 10 Court appeal limited issues. Standard Court of court t o summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon s t a t e - State-agent-immunity "This trial u n d e r R u l e 5, A l a . R. question t h a t the defendants' treated 2008, the to 1080368 e v i d e n c e , Fuqua, s u p r a , A l d r i d g e v. V a l l e y S t e e l C o n s t r . , I n c . , 603 S o . 2 d 981 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; and w i l l resolve a l l reasonable doubts a g a i n s t the moving p a r t y , Hurst, s u p r a , Ex p a r t e B r i s l i n , 719 S o . 2 d 185 (Ala. 1998). "'"An appellate court reviewing a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w i l l , de n o v o , a p p l y t h e s e same standards applicable i n the t r i a l court. Fuqua, supra, Brislin, supra. Likewise, the appellate court w i l l consider only that f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e of record to the trial court for i t s consideration i n deciding the motion. Dynasty Corp. v. A l p h a R e s i n s C o r p . , 577 S o . 2 d 1278 ( A l a . 1991), B o l a n d v. F o r t Rucker N a t ' l Bank, 599 S o . 2 d 595 ( A l a . 1992 ) , Rowe v . I s b e l l , 599 S o . 2 d 35 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " ' "Ex p a r t e T u r n e r , 840 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 , 135 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e R i z k , 791 S o . 2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 2 - 1 3 ( A l a . 2000)). A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy a v a i l a b l e only when the p e t i t i o n e r can d e m o n s t r a t e : '"(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e order s o u g h t ; (2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) the l a c k of another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) t h e properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court."' Ex p a r t e N a l l , 879 S o . 2 d 5 4 1 , 543 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e BOC G r o u p , I n c . , 823 S o . 2 d 1270 , 1 2 7 2 (Ala. 2001))." Ex parte Yancey, 8 So. 3d 2 9 9 , 303-04 (Ala. 2008). Discussion " I n E x p a r t e C r a n m a n , 7 92 S o . 2 d 392 ( A l a . 2000), a p l u r a l i t y of t h i s Court r e s t a t e d the t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g when a S t a t e e m p l o y e e i s e n t i t l e d t o State-agent immunity: 11 1080368 "'A S t a t e a g e n t s h a l l b e immune f r o m civil liability i n h i s or her personal c a p a c i t y when t h e c o n d u c t made t h e b a s i s o f the c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e agent i s b a s e d upon the agent's "'(1) f o r m u l a t i n g designs; or plans, policies, or "'(2) e x e r c i s i n g h i s or h e r judgment i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a department or agency of government, i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , examples such a s : "'(a) making adjudications; administrative "'(b) allocating resources; "'(c) negotiating contracts; "'(d) hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel; or " ' ( 3 ) d i s c h a r g i n g d u t i e s i m p o s e d on a department o r agency by s t a t u t e , r u l e , or r e g u l a t i o n , i n s o f a r as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e , or r e g u l a t i o n p r e s c r i b e s t h e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t i e s and t h e S t a t e agent performs the duties i n that manner; or "'(4) exercising judgment i n the enforcement o f t h e c r i m i n a l laws of t h e State, including, but not l i m i t e d t o , law-enforcement officers' arresting or attempting to arrest persons; or "'(5) exercising judgment i n the discharge of duties imposed by s t a t u t e , r u l e , or r e g u l a t i o n i n r e l e a s i n g p r i s o n e r s , c o u n s e l i n g or r e l e a s i n g persons o f unsound 12 1080368 mind, or educating students. "'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary i n the foregoing statement of the r u l e , a S t a t e a g e n t s h a l l n o t b e immune from c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n h i s or her p e r s o n a l capacity " ' ( 1 ) when t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r l a w s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s State, or laws, r u l e s , or regulations of t h i s State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of r e g u l a t i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of a governmental agency r e q u i r e o t h e r w i s e ; o r "'(2) when the State agent acts willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, i n bad f a i t h , beyond h i s o r h e r a u t h o r i t y , o r under a mistaken interpretation of the law.' "792 So. 2d a t 405. A l t h o u g h C r a n m a n was a p l u r a l i t y d e c i s i o n , t h e r e s t a t e m e n t o f l a w as i t pertains to State-agent immunity set forth in C r a n m a n was s u b s e q u e n t l y a d o p t e d b y t h i s C o u r t i n E x p a r t e R i z k , 791 S o . 2 d 911 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 S o . 2 d 173 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . "Additionally, this Court has stated: "'This Court has established a "burden-shifting" process when a party r a i s e s the defense of State-agent immunity. G i a m b r o n e v . D o u g l a s , 874 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 2 (Ala. 2003). In order to claim State-agent immunity, a S t a t e agent bears the burden of demonstrating that the p l a i n t i f f ' s claims a r i s e from a f u n c t i o n that would entitle the S t a t e agent t o immunity. Giambrone, 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ; E x p a r t e Wood, 852 S o . 2 d 7 0 5 , 709 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . I f the State a g e n t makes s u c h a s h o w i n g , t h e b u r d e n t h e n 13 1080368 s h i f t s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t o show t h a t t h e State agent acted w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , or beyond h i s o r h e r a u t h o r i t y . G i a m b r o n e , 874 So. 2 d a t 10 52 ; Wood, 852 So. 2 d a t 7 0 9 ; E x parte D a v i s , 721 So. 2 d 6 8 5 , 689 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . "A S t a t e a g e n t a c t s b e y o n d a u t h o r i t y and i s therefore not immune when he or she ' f a i l [ s ] to discharge d u t i e s pursuant to detailed r u l e s or r e g u l a t i o n s , such as t h o s e s t a t e d on a c h e c k l i s t . ' " Giambrone, 874 So. 2 d a t 1052 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u t t s , 775 So. 2 d 1 7 3 , 178 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . ' "Ex p a r t e E s t a t e (Ala. 2006)." Ex parte Yancey, Givan agents their that not the that immunity. Reynolds, 3d at dispute the She 946 So. 2d 450 , that motion the made to defendants contends, a defendants sufficient shift are the not however, are in to her to burden entitled that she the "defendants different ways." acted State showing to State- offered, in o p p o s i t i o n to the d e f e n d a n t s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n on S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y , 452 304-05. defendants summary-judgment demonstrate agent 8 So. does or of grounded s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g beyond their (Givan's b r i e f , p. authority 1.) She in twenty-five asserts: " [ I ] f the d e f e n d a n t s had c o m p l i e d w i t h the mandatory S t a t e [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] r e g u l a t i o n s , policies, and court orders that governed their c o n d u c t [ , ] ... [ t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t j u d g e ] w o u l d h a v e known (among o t h e r t h i n g s ) : (1) t h a t C a r t e r h a d a 14 that 1080368 c r i m i n a l background that included burglary, theft, d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g , a n d g a n g v i o l e n c e ; (2) t h a t C a r t e r l i v e d i n t h e home w i t h S a n d r a b e f o r e , d u r i n g , and a f t e r t h e J u l y 27, 2 0 0 5 , b e a t i n g ; (3) t h a t C a r t e r was t h e c h i e f d i s c i p l i n a r i a n o f D o m i n i c a n d S a n d r a ' s other c h i l d r e n ; (4) t h a t C a r t e r c a l l e d S a n d r a h i s w i f e and D o m i n i c h i s son; and (5) t h a t C a r t e r and S a n d r a c o n s u m e d c o c a i n e a n d o t h e r d r u g s on a d a i l y b a s i s b e f o r e , d u r i n g , and a f t e r t h e J u l y 27, 2 0 0 5 , beating. B e c a u s e [ t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t j u d g e ] was not apprised of t h e s e f a c t s , [ t h e j u d g e ] u n w i t t i n g l y r e t u r n e d Dominic back to Sandra's care [ i n February 2006]. Approximately one month later, Sandra foreseeably left Dominic in Carter's care, and C a r t e r f o r e s e e a b l y b e a t him t o d e a t h . " (Givan's brief, pp. 1-2.) I. We trial first address the denial of court's defendants' their d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d w e r e new materials consider denial with a in opposition the of their their motion argument summary j u d g m e n t The complaint "committed includes acts or to omissions the We denial the of which their court's intertwined motion for immunity. recognize allegation trial i t is State-agent 15 the summary-judgment m o t i o n . implicitly general what her because by the Givan i n strike on regarding strike argument r e g a r d i n g grounded a to "claims" presented regarding defendants motion to t h e i r defendants' argument that violated that the Givan's defendants specific laws, 1080368 rules, or r e g u l a t i o n s of t h i s the purpose of r e g u l a t i n g S t a t e enacted or promulgated the causing [Dominic's] death." activities Even so, o f DHR, the for proximately defendants argue: " [ G i v a n ' s ] c o m p l a i n t c l e a r l y s e t s out a s p e c i f i c a c t o r o m i s s i o n as t o e a c h D e f e n d a n t r e g a r d i n g t h e drug-test retrieval issue. Like fraud cases or m e d i c a l - m a l p r a c t i c e s u i t s , a p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d have to plead some specificity as to each act or omission. I t i s the a l l e g e d act or o m i s s i o n i n a State-immunity case t h a t puts the State-agent on n o t i c e of the a c t u a l c l a i m . For instance i n a medical-malpractice case, a d e t a i l e d specification and f a c t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f each a c t o r o m i s s i o n must be a l l e g e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f t o r e n d e r t h e h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r l i a b l e . L o n g v . Wade, 980 So. 2d 3 7 8 , 386 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . O t h e r w i s e , a s i n t h i s c a s e , on t h e eve of trial a defendant asserting State-agent i m m u n i t y w i l l n o t know w h a t a l l t h e c l a i m s a r e " (Defendants' Thus, reply the brief, pp. defendants plead with s p e c i f i c i t y 19-20.) argue (1) that a plaintiff must the c l a i m s i n her complaint i n order to defeat a defendant's p o s s i b l e c l a i m of State-agent immunity or (2) on her that, after the b a s i s of complaint general As a defendant has State-agent immunity, t o add specific moved f o r a summary a plaintiff allegations judgment must in addition amend to her allegation. noted, position, the defendants cite, in support the h e i g h t e n e d - p l e a d i n g requirements 16 that of their apply to 1080368 a plaintiff alleging requirements, however, C o u r t o r by statute. § Ala. 6-5-551, absence of fraud any Code are See or imposed Rule 1975 medical either 9(b), by A l a . R. (medical similar authority malpractice. in a Civ. rule P. malpractice). the context Those of this (fraud); In 7 of a 6 the claim R u l e 9 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., states: "In a l l averments of f r a u d or m i s t a k e , the c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n s t i t u t i n g f r a u d or m i s t a k e s h a l l be s t a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y . Malice, intent, k n o w l e d g e , and o t h e r c o n d i t i o n o f m i n d o f a p e r s o n may be averred generally." 6 7 Section 6-5-551, A l a . Code 1975, provides: " I n any a c t i o n f o r i n j u r y , damages, o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h ... a g a i n s t a h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r f o r b r e a c h of the standard of care ... the Alabama Medical Liability Act shall govern the parameters of discovery and a l l aspects of the action. The p l a i n t i f f s h a l l i n c l u d e i n the c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n the action a d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n and factual description of each a c t and omission alleged by p l a i n t i f f to render the h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r liable to p l a i n t i f f and s h a l l i n c l u d e when f e a s i b l e and a s c e r t a i n a b l e t h e d a t e , t i m e , and p l a c e o f t h e act o r a c t s . The plaintiff s h a l l amend h i s complaint t i m e l y u p o n a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f new or d i f f e r e n t a c t s or omissions upon which his claim is based; provided, h o w e v e r , t h a t a n y s u c h amendment m u s t be made a t l e a s t 90 d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l . Any complaint which f a i l s to i n c l u d e such d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n and f a c t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a c h a c t and omission s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f may be g r a n t e d . Any party s h a l l be p r o h i b i t e d f r o m c o n d u c t i n g d i s c o v e r y with regard to any other act or omission or from i n t r o d u c i n g a t t r i a l e v i d e n c e o f any o t h e r a c t or omission." 17 1080368 against a petition holding State have that insufficient agent, the defendants not demonstrated Givan's "a i n their clear general allegation legal mandamus right" i n h e r c o m p l a i n t was or that a heightened-pleading requirement apply to Givan i n t h i s case. to a See Ex p a r t e Y a n c e y , should 8 So. 3d a t 304. II. Givan argues that beyond h e r a u t h o r i t y agent immunity. things, Watson (Department and i s t h e r e f o r e of 660-5-34-.05(1)(b). abuse/neglect (b) for t h e CA/N i n v e s t i g a t o r , Specifically, that "standards Watson, failed 8 t o comply Human that contends, with CA/N "must to State- among other A l a . Admin. Resources) Regulation conducting reports" Givan not e n t i t l e d acted Regulation 6 60-5-34.05(1) assessments be f o l l o w e d . " Code provides on child Subsection states: "(b) A s s e s s i n g Reports with P a r e n t s . Contact must be i n i t i a t e d w i t h a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t p r o m p t l y upon r e c e i p t o f a r e p o r t e x c e p t i n i n s t a n c e s where such action could pose danger f o r the child G i v a n a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t W a t s o n v i o l a t e d A l a . A d m i n . Code ( D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ) R e g u l a t i o n 6 6 0 - 5 - 5 0 - . 0 7 , w h i c h r e q u i r e s p e r i o d i c home v i s i t s . However, t h a t s e c t i o n , which applies to foster-care situations, d i d not apply i n the present case. 8 18 1080368 involved. The c o n t a c t s h o u l d e s t a b l i s h t h e need f o r p r o t e c t i v e s e r v i c e s o r agency n o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n . A home v i s i t i s r e q u i r e d a n d may b e made w i t h o r without p r i o r n o t i f i c a t i o n . " Givan she contends says, Carter's custody. Watson home 9 that Watson violated d i d not conduct before Dominic Watson does n o t d i s p u t e subsection a home v i s i t was that (b) b e c a u s e , o f Sandra and released she never to Sandra's conducted a W a t s o n d i d n o t make a home v i s i t , b u t t h e o n g o i n g s e r v i c e w o r k e r , J a c k s o n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e made u n a n n o u n c e d home v i s i t s as a p a r t o f h e r work. However, S a n d r a t e s t i f i e d t h a t J a c k s o n ' s v i s i t s were n o t unannounced; Sandra a s s e r t e d t h a t J a c k s o n a l w a y s t e l e p h o n e d b e f o r e s h e made a home v i s i t , a n d Sandra s t a t e d t h a t she would t e l l Carter to leave before Jackson arrived. 9 Jackson testified that she d i d n o t focus on Carter b e c a u s e C a r t e r was n o t l i s t e d i n t h e CA/N m a t e r i a l s a s a potential perpetrator. Jackson t e s t i f i e d : "Q. [By Givan's attorney:] Is there any d o c u m e n t a t i o n anywhere i n your n a r r a t i v e from t h e t i m e t h a t t h i s f i l e was o p e n e d w i t h y o u i n A u g u s t [2005] u n t i l A p r i l 2006 o f a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t y o u had w i t h any o f t h e t h r e e o t h e r c h i l d r e n concerning Jorge Carter? "A. I f t h e r e was i t was a f t e r t h e c h i l d ' s d e a t h . E v e n t h o u g h h e was q u e s t i o n e d h e w a s n o t f o c u s e d o n I t was c l e a r t h a t h e was n o t i n t h e home a n d t h a t was t h e p a r t o f p o l i c y t o k n o w who l i v e s i n t h e home. "Q. So y o u ' r e s a y i n g t h a t b e t w e e n t h e t i m e t h a t you o p e n e d t h i s f i l e ... i n A u g u s t [ 2 0 0 5 ] a n d u p u n t i l t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d ' s d e a t h i n M a r c h [2006] t h a t y o u h a d no i d e a t h a t J o r g e C a r t e r w a s i n t h e 19 1080368 home v i s i t The defendants evidence Ware's of Sandra and C a r t e r ' s argue i n d i c a t i n g that house. that home. Watson she v i s i t e d However, 10 submitted Givan's the defendants substantial house and M a t t i e do n o t specifically contend that e i t h e r Givan or Mattie qualified as a " c u s t o d i a l parent" under Regulation 660-5-34-.05(1)(b). Consequently, because Givan offered Watson violated s u b s t a n t i a l evidence Regulation 660-5-34-.05(1)(b) Watson has n o t s u b m i t t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e home, i s t h a t that than your indicating and that because i n d i c a t i n g that testimony? "A. My t e s t i m o n y i s t h a t i t was r e p o r t e d t o me he d i d n o t l i v e i n [ S a n d r a ' s ] home f r o m m o r e one s o u r c e . " Jackson admitted that she had r e c e i v e d a copy of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f S a n d r a i n d i c a t i n g t h a t C a r t e r was l i v i n g i n t h e home w i t h S a n d r a a n d h e r f o u r c h i l d r e n , b u t s h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t b y t h e t i m e s h e r e c e i v e d t h e r e p o r t C a r t e r was in j a i l . Sandra testified that she "remember[ed] [Watson's] c o m i n g u p t o t h e h o u s e a n d t a l k i n g w i t h me a n d [ C a r t e r ] . " H o w e v e r , W a t s o n u n e q u i v o c a l l y t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t go t o Sandra's house a t any p o i n t d u r i n g h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Watson t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : 1 0 "Q. [By G i v a n ' s a t t o r n e y : ] A t any p o i n t , d i d y o u e v e r go t o t h e home o f S a n d r a W a r e d u r i n g t h e course of your i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? "A. No." 20 1080368 she that complied with s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) , Watson has not she i s e n t i t l e d As set forth to State-agent above, judgment on a l l claims asserting in their the immunity. defendants asserted sought against summary-judgment motion Alabama Department the defendants bad faith, beyond interpretation demonstrated entitled Watson. due their of law." i n their t o be or defendants materials t o a summary j u d g m e n t Accordingly, Givan, Givan could or procedures o r any e v i d e n c e maliciously, authority, The by a u t h o r i t y as e m p l o y e e s o f t h e o f Human R e s o u r c e s " "acted w i l f u l l y , summary f a i l e d to follow law or departmental r u l e s , p r a c t i c e s or t h a t they a c t e d o u t s i d e t h e i r a them that not " p r o v i d e any e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s applicable demonstrated to this that fraudulently, i n under have Court a mistaken n o t , however, that they are as t o a l l t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' p e t i t i o n as t o Watson i s denied. III. Among ongoing other service characterizes a memorandum things, worker, Givan failed as a "mandatory contends to comply checklist" from her s u p e r v i s o r , D o l l a r . 21 that Jackson, with what the Givan given to Jackson i n Specifically, Givan 1080368 contends in that Jackson t h e memorandum failed t o comply w i t h to "[g]ather the i n s t r u c t i o n s more i n f o r m a t i o n o n ... C a r t e r ( b a c k g r o u n d check, employment, r e s i d e n c e , "[g]et records injuries." with Dollar's testified e t c . ) " and t o from C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l concerning J a c k s o n does n o t d i s p u t e t o comply Instead, Carter b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t C a r t e r was l i v i n g w i t h Sandra upon what the family defendants assert only at best further should that would assert that discretion had t o l d her. "may h a v e b e e n n a i v e , to negligence." but this defendants p o l i c y and however, J a c k s o n does n o t argue t h a t she had t h e to t h e memorandum The The 1 1 " i s n o t DHR not defeat Notably, and Sandra Jackson amount any i n f o r m a t i o n she on based she d i d n o t g a t h e r [Dominic's] t h a t she f a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e memorandum. that Jorge immunity." disregard memorandum; f o r a l l t h a t Dollar's appears instructions i n the materials before us, memorandum and removed any d i s c r e t i o n J a c k s o n might have had i n d e c i d i n g to perform memorandum. 11 See the s p e c i f i c T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e supra note 9. 22 tasks was b i n d i n g the the whether from D o l l a r t o Jackson in Dollar on listed Jackson i n the that D o l l a r had the a u t h o r i t y 1080368 to impose mandatory memorandum like memorandum from its instructions the memorandum instructions 2003), the complied one Dollar from a Jackson relied upon to Jackson Dollar i n Giambrone was i n the form by the was on J a c k s o n . v. Douglas, denied director, to, guidelines o f t h e Alabama 874 So. 2d a t 1053-55. the a b o v e - s t a t e d mandatory High to the coach's the coach noted is therefore duties those 305 above, things, stated (quoting parte Butts, agent acts rules on a c h e c k l i s t . ' " ' " Ex p a r t e E s t a t e So. 2d had not the the t o comply with requirements i n the "checklist" i n to detailed 775 of Association. beyond to discharge or r e g u l a t i o n s , Ex p a r t e Yancey, of Reynolds, immunity. a u t h o r i t y and n o t immune when he o r s h e ' f a i l [ s ] q u o t i n g i n t u r n Giambrone, claim follow School A t h l e t i c Thus, J a c k s o n ' s f a i l u r e "'"[a] State pursuant (Ala. supervisor, D o l l a r ' s memorandum d e f e a t s h e r c l a i m o f S t a t e - a g e n t As clear i n regard, his other the In this because among and 874 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 6 of of a i s analogous to Jackson instructions athletics Givan, sufficiently high-school wrestling immunity with upon a n d was b i n d i n g i n which State-agent duties such as 8 So. 3d a t 946 S o . 2 d a t 4 5 2 , 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 , w h i c h q u o t e d E x 173, 23 178 ( A l a . 2000 ) (emphasis 1080368 added)). The defendants against them. sought summary However, i n t h e i r d e f e n d a n t s have not judgment a shown t h a t materials they are as to a l l Accordingly, the defendants' p e t i t i o n be the judgment claims on to t h i s entitled asserted as a l l claims Court, to a against to Jackson the summary Jackson. i s due to denied. IV. G i v a n c o n t e n d s t h a t b o t h E u b a n k s and [their] authority contends (1) July 28 , t h a t she 2005, ensure t h a t the (i.e., before "review a l l welfare staff information received to four ways." initial initial October initial [PD]ISP"; of complete.'" (4) to and that approve the "she failed to completed i n ninety 26, (3) 2005)"; to the protocol that "she 24 any and allowed should Givan she days failed determine [and] when s h e Dollar, that general concurrence 'indicated' As Givan sign, (2) assessments supervisory beyond Eubanks, to "acted a s s e s s m e n t be have c o m p l i e d w i t h and As " f a i l e d to review, collection documented"; disposition in Dollar that child requirements deviations been Watson and have adequately to give have g i v e n contends to (1) the 'unable that "she 1080368 failed to occurred that ensure within thirty the i n i t i a l days"; an I S P r e v i e w o c c u r r e d failed to take Carter only (4) that that (2) t h a t within "she supervised failed to the "she f a i l e d or r e v i s i t visitation sign of s i x months"; any a c t i o n t o address have review [PDISP] to ensure (3) t h a t " s h e the rule that o f t h e c h i l d r e n " ; and Jackson's deficient court report." In submitted support of an a f f i d a v i t the summary-judgment motion, Eubanks setting forth the following: "As a S e r v i c e S u p e r v i s o r f o r the J e f f e r s o n County D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , I p e r f o r m e d a l l o f my d u t i e s w i t h i n t h e l i n e a n d s c o p e o f my e m p l o y m e n t . I supervised the child abuse and neglect i n v e s t i g a t i v e w o r k e r , L a c i W a t s o n , who was a s s i g n e d to investigate allegations of physical, abuse c o n c e r n i n g D o m i n i c W a r e . My d u t i e s as a Service Supervisor included the following: "1. S u p e r v i s e s and m o n i t o r s t h e C h i l d P r o t e c t i v e Services Investigation Program so that investigations are initiated, conducted, and completed [in] accordance to p o l i c y . "2. C o r r e c t l y c o m p i l e s a n d t i m e l y s u b m i t s [ S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] a n d l o c a l l y required m o n t h l y , q u a r t e r l y , and a n n u a l p r o g r a m r e p o r t s so t h a t few e r r o r s a r e n o t e d . "4. Plans, organizes, assigns, monitors, evaluates and c o o r d i n a t e s unit work including c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n p l a n s , as n e e d e d , so t h a t r e q u i r e d 25 1080368 work i s complete. "5. S u p e r v i s e s , s u p p o r t s , i n s t r u c t s employees through training, consultation, evaluation and l e a d e r s h i p so t h a t s t a f f i s p r o f i c i e n t i n j o b t a s k s . "7. Supervises/Evaluates the performance of staff i n order to determine the l e v e l o f work performance, identify training needs, and compliance. fi "9. M a i n t a i n s s u p e r v i s e e ' s f i l e s w h i c h i n c l u d e at a minimum copies of preappraisals, responsibilities statements, form 40, n o t e s from c o n f e r e n c e s . ... "10. Facilitate and attend d e c i s i o n I S P ' s when n e c e s s a r y . ... " Dollar affidavit setting forth her supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a s s e r t i n g t h a t she "performed the line [her] submitted a l l of employment," In Court a Gowens addressed (Charity Rose) Resources. substantially ISP's/placement [her] duties including v . T y s . S., similar within the supervision 948 S o . 2 d 513 claims brought at the Jefferson Regarding similar those County claims, and scope of Jackson. ( A l a . 2006), this against a supervisor Department t h e Gowens C o u r t o f Human stated: "The p l a i n t i f f s contend that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r R o s e on t h e ground of State-agent immunity. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the 26 of 1080368 trial court stated: " ' D e f e n d a n t C h a r i t y R o s e ... was i n a supervisory position. The a c t i o n s which she took with regard to this case i n assigning Defendant Gowens and then following up on the reports that he g e n e r a t e d d i d c a l l upon D e f e n d a n t Rose t o e x e r c i s e j u d g m e n t a n d d i s c r e t i o n i n ways t h a t [ t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a v e ] n o t shown t o t h e c o u r t were d i r e c t e d and g u i d e d by c l e a r and d e f i n i t e r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s and g u i d e l i n e s . Therefore, t h e c o u r t f i n d s , as a m a t t e r o f law t h a t s t a t e - a g e n t immunity does a p p l y t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s made a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t R o s e and s e r v e as a c o m p l e t e d e f e n s e t o t h e charges made against her i n [the plaintiffs'] complaint.' "We a g r e e w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The c o m p l a i n t alleged that Rose was 'responsible f o r the s u p e r v i s i o n and m o n i t o r i n g o f ... Gowens a n d f o r reviewing findings of suspected neglect or inadequate supervision and f o r ensuring that appropriate a c t i o n [be] t a k e n i n r e s p o n s e t o s u c h findings.' (Emphasis added.) I t also alleged that Rose had a 'duty t o p r o p e r l y a c t upon D e f e n d a n t Gowens's reports of suspected child neglect by Tymisha [ S . ] . ' "Rose c o n t e n d s t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e agent immunity, b e c a u s e , she i n s i s t s , she i s b e i n g sued for 'her supervision of Gowens's CAN i n v e s t i g a t i o n , ' which, she i n s i s t s , r e q u i r e d h e r' t o e x e r c i s e h e r d i s c r e t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment i n the performance o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y d u t i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d i n t h e Cranman t e s t . ' Rose's b r i e f , a t 26 (emphasis added). T h e r e was a m p l e testimony i n d i c a t i n g t h a t R o s e was o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and scope o f h e r employment by t h e [ J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ] DHR a s a ' s e n i o r s o c i a l w o r k supervisor.' According to i t s o f f i c i a l description, her job 27 1080368 'involv[ed] planning, prioritizing, and reviewing [the] work o f s t a f f i n v o l v e d i n a s s i g n e d area(s); ... recommending and participating in the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s ; i m p l e m e n t i n g policies and procedures of assigned program a c t i v i t i e s ; p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s e l e c t i o n of s t a f f ; and p r o v i d i n g o r c o o r d i n a t i n g s t a f f t r a i n i n g . ' The e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o s h i f t t h e b u r d e n t o t h e plaintiffs t o show that Rose 'acted willfully, m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , ' Giambrone [ v . D o u g l a s ] , 874 S o . 2 d [ 1 0 4 6 , ] a t 1 0 5 2 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] , o r t h a t s h e 'was n o t e x e r c i s i n g [ h e r ] ... judgment i n t h e manner s e t f o r t h i n t h e examples i n Cranman.' E x p a r t e H u d s o n , 866 S o . 2 d [ 1 1 1 5 , ] a t 1118 [(Ala. 2003)]. "The p l a i n t i f f s do n o t c o n t e n d t h a t R o s e ' a c t e d willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, [or] i n bad faith.' Instead, they i n s i s t that 'Rose, as t h e s u p e r v i s o r , i s r e q u i r e d t o ... r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v e e a c h CAN i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' w i t h i n 60 d a y s , a n d t h a t s h e did not a c t u a l l y sign t h e S e p t e m b e r CAN report w i t h i n that time p e r i o d . P l a i n t i f f s ' b r i e f , a t 21¬ 22. They c i t e the following provisions of the [Department of Human Resources] Manual and i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r completing c e r t a i n forms: "'[1] A f t e r a s s e s s i n g t h e s t r e n g t h and r i s k i n t h e home, t h e w o r k e r a n d s u p e r v i s o r w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e l e v e l o f r i s k o f harm t o t h e child. The s i g n a t u r e s o f t h e w o r k e r a n d s u p e r v i s o r a r e r e q u i r e d o n F o r m DHR-DFC1924B t o document t h a t t h e y have e x a m i n e d t h e r i s k f a c t o r s a n d c o n c u r on t h e l e v e l o f risk and the explanation for their determination. I f a determination of high risk i s made, a safety plan shall be developed to determine immediate action required to protect the c h i l d ( r e n ) . 28 1080368 "'[2] If the worker and supervisor determine that the c h i l d v i c t i m i s at r i s k , actions to protect the c h i l d must be implemented immediately. A safety plan must be d e v e l o p e d w h i c h a d d r e s s e s t h e r i s k f a c t o r s / c o m b i n a t i o n o f r i s k f a c t o r s and t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t o e f f e c t i v e l y manage t h e s e r i s k s . The w o r k e r / s u p e r v i s o r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e p a r e n t / c a r e t a k e r , t h e c h i l d i f age a p p r o p r i a t e , a n d a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s o n s who are i n v o l v e d i n case p l a n n i n g activities with the family w i l l devise a plan to protect the c h i l d . The s a f e t y p l a n i s t o be d o c u m e n t e d o n F o r m D H R - D F C - 1 9 2 4 C , H i g h Risk Protocol (Safety Plan). The w o r k e r and s u p e r v i s o r a r e t o s i g n and date t h e safety plan to indicate their concurrence and a p p r o v a l . N o t e : The s a f e t y p l a n f o r low and moderate risk may also be d o c u m e n t e d on t h e DHR-DFC-1924C o r may b e recorded i n the case n a r r a t i v e . fl I " ' [ 3 ] I n S e c t i o n V [ o f F o r m DHR-DFC-192 4C, High R i s k P r o t o c o l P a r t C ] , t h e worker and s u p e r v i s o r who d e v e l o p t h e s a f e t y p l a n m u s t s i g n and d a t e t h e f o r m as w e l l as any o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s such as p a r e n t s o r r e l a t i v e s . These signatures show concurrence and approval of the s a f e t y plan. It i s important to obtain the signature of i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d as t h e " r e s p o n s i b l e and r e l i a b l e p e r s o n " a n d / o r " c a r e t a k e r " t o document t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d . ' "(Emphasis omitted.) P a r a g r a p h s one a n d two a r e contained i n t h e [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] Manual, while paragraph three i s contained i n the ' I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Completing the High Risk P r o t o c o l P a r t s A, B, a n d C.' The p l a i n t i f f s ' r e l i a n c e on 29 1080368 these provisions i s unpersuasive. "The p l a i n t i f f s ' t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e i s t h a t t h e [Jefferson County] DHR conducted a negligent i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e S e p t e m b e r CAN r e p o r t , a n d t h e i r t h e o r y a g a i n s t Rose, s p e c i f i c a l l y , i s t h a t she a c t e d n e g l i g e n t l y i n s u p e r v i s i n g Gowens's i n v e s t i g a t i o n . On i t s f a c e , t h e i r t h e o r y a g a i n s t R o s e i s ' c o n t r a r y to w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d immunity p r i n c i p l e s . ' V i c k v. S a w y e r , 936 S o . 2 d [ 5 1 7 , ] a t 527 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ] . See a l s o L o v e v . D a v i s , 14 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 7 3 , 1278 (M.D. Ala. 1998) ( ' [ B ] e c a u s e supervisory and t r a i n i n g functions require constant decision-making, they a r e , f o r t h e most p a r t , d i s c r e t i o n a r y . ' ) . "The p l a i n t i f f s p o i n t t o no r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n requiring Rose to conduct an investigation i n d e p e n d e n t o f Gowens's i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Instead, according t o t h e p o r t i o n s o f t h e [Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] M a n u a l on w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f s rely, Rose's p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e d h e r t o 'assess,' 'determine,' 'examine,' 'concur,' and ' d e v i s e ' and 'develop' plans. These activities a l l involve judgment and d i s c r e t i o n . By d e f i n i t i o n , as w e l l as in operation, they are not ' c h e c k l i s t ' activities, l i k e t h e o n e r e q u i r i n g Gowens t o v e r i f y t h e n u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n i n t h e home b y u s i n g a n o u t s i d e source. W i t h o u t an i n d e p e n d e n t d u t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e , t h e f a c t t h a t R o s e d i d n o t a c t u a l l y s i g n t h e S e p t e m b e r CAN r e p o r t w i t h i n 60 d a y s i s i m m a t e r i a l . " 948 So. 2d a t 531-32. The the defendants claims against i n the present the supervisor case point out that, i n Gowens, a l l like Givan's a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t Eubanks and D o l l a r a r e addressed s o l e l y t o supervision--i.e., work, Eubanks's and D o l l a r ' s review review o f t h e CA/N a n d W a t s o n ' s of Jackson's 30 work. Givan does n o t 1080368 r e f e r t o any r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g Eubanks o r D o l l a r t o act independently Consequently, entitled of the workers Eubanks and D o l l a r to State-agent they have were shown immunity f o r Givan's supervising. that they are claims against them. Conclusion The claims petition i s denied of State-agent Dollar's as immunity; t o Watson's the petition and Eubanks's c l a i m s o f S t a t e - a g e n t and Jackson's i s g r a n t e d as t o immunity. P E T I T I O N GRANTED I N PART AND DENIED I N PART; WRIT Cobb, and ISSUED. Parker, C . J . , and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . ,concurs i n p a r t and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t . 31 1080368 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e Adopting So. 2d 2d 173 her 392 the the analysis (Ala. 2000), previously addition, provided and by Ex C o u r t i n Ex that a State dissenting in part). parte parte Cranman, Butts, is liability i f the performing categorized consistent as wrongdoing certain the types occurs of while activities functions." pre-Cranman tortious duties the availability c o n d u c t c o m m i t t e d by i m p o s e d on regulation, prescribes 178 that law. (quoting the complete directive, duties Cranman, converse That of i s , when accordance I do as the statute, not So. 2d the latter an employee with or duties an believe at and does 32 not the 775 I do rule i s part applicable the 405). of do rule, or regulation i n t h a t manner.'" B u t t s , 792 for "'discharging statute, rule, of Butts immunity employee w h i l e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g the agent performs the at an In recognition State-agent a d e p a r t m e n t or agency by insofar the of or State- i m m u n i t y f o r s o - c a l l e d " m i n i s t e r i a l d u t i e s , " Cranman and recognized So. employee sued i n h i s "discretionary with 7 92 775 capacity f o r t o r t i o u s wrongdoing enjoys immunity from employee in part this (Ala. 2000), h e l d individual agent (concurring our not State So. think immunity everything regulation "beyond a u t h o r i t y " 2d or in other exception 1080368 recognized i n Butts State-agent i m m u n i t y he o r s h e w o u l d o t h e r w i s e Specifically, views not necessarily from the employee's believe that applicable the f a i l u r e of a given faith case, i n not result falls or every immunity) not conduct). place n e c e s s a r i l y means t h a t be following that an an e x c e p t i o n I am supervisor State-agent to deprive directive exception wantonly however, we immunity even an to the has acted to i n bad (and as a State-agent (though Alabama has t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity f o r wanton concerned, matter every t h e employee, has acted that consider we an oral employee on t h e g r o u n d "beyond h i s o r h e r a u t h o r i t y . " 33 of that a r e moving to a any v i o l a t i o n o f any a n d a n y v i o l a t i o n o f a memorandum f o r that I do t o him o r h e r by law. In applicable has acted given analysis, t h e employee the bad-faith i n our law i n which regulation (or i t may or perhaps recognized the law to follow instruction State-agent-immunity within have. o f t h e how o f an e m p l o y e e beyond the a u t h o r i t y otherwise given a o f any relationship to the injured party, regulation purposes t h e employee the perspective employee by a s u p e r v i s o r for strips of i n s t r u c t i o n instruction) otherwise from a applicable he o r s h e i s a c t i n g 1080368 Obviously, "authorized" state, in to violate or to Must or her no State employee we appropriate not be instructions circumspect, an e m p l o y e e from however, fails of a r e g u l a t i o n or a l l the i n s t r u c t i o n s given i n a memorandum from a supervisor, the authority address an an official involved? department I f that or any told by tortious a c t i n g beyond we h i s or her conduct n o t be supervisor e f f e c t would n o t e v e n be n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e , has the agency from authority to a act or are to to parties will supervisor in this that refrain a u t h o r i t y w h e n e v e r he o r s h e directive to h i s or to say always Indeed, never the obliged otherwise? employee of a employee, i n w h i c h we vis-a-vis third the employee's a employee i s the sense the matter, then would employee from as a in to follow i n s o f a r as a t h i r d p a r t y i s c o n c e r n e d , has a c t e d b e y o n d her is any a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n , f e d e r a l o r t h a t merely because requirement him sense, disregard supervisor. concluding one be does to this sense, tortiously an toward others. My point C o u r t has State-agent i s this: I fear begun t o a p p l y immunity the does that t h e manner i n w h i c h "beyond not 34 allow this authority" exception for the drawing on to a 1080368 principled basis of a l i n e that prevents this exception increasingly i s the subject of our State-agent-immunity from b e c o m i n g an e x c e p t i o n that swallows the past This Court has in Restatement (Second) of Torts this See B e l l v. Chisom, area. 1982). for over The R e s t a t e m e n t , 30 y e a r s , cases) the rule. often § 895D looked to the (1979) f o r guidance i n 421 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 9 , 1240 ( A l a . a s i t now provides (which reads the following and as i t has insight read as t o what i s m e a n t w h e n we s p e a k o f a n e m p l o y e e a c t i n g b e y o n d h i s o r h e r authority: "An i m m u n i t y p r o t e c t s an o f f i c e r o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t that he i s a c t i n g i n the general scope of h i s o f f i c i a l authority. When he g o e s e n t i r e l y b e y o n d i t a n d d o e s an a c t t h a t i s n o t p e r m i t t e d a t a l l b y t h a t d u t y , he i s n o t a c t i n g i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s a p u b l i c o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e a n d he h a s no m o r e i m m u n i t y t h a n a private citizen. I t i s as i f a p o l i c e o f f i c e r o f one s t a t e m a k e s a n a r r e s t i n a n o t h e r s t a t e w h e r e he h a s no a u t h o r i t y . " Restatement In his (Second) o f T o r t s § 895D c m t . g other words, the concept of a State or employee her authority acting outside corresponds the line 35 employee a c t i n g with and (emphasis the scope concept of added). beyond of an h i s or her 1080368 employment. 1 2 I t has every s i t u a t i o n the general never been a concept intended to while acting i n which a S t a t e employee, line and scope nonetheless violates some instructions from or his of his federal her address within or employment, state or her regulation, supervisor, or, taken l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n , Alabama law p r o h i b i t i n g n e g l i g e n t In the 391 Cranman and Butts this Court r e c o g n i z e d and to i t s conduct. endorsed d e c i s i o n i n D e S t a f n e y v . U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a , 413 ( A l a . 1981), t o no l o n g e r h a v e an "open d o o r a g a i n s t State employees," " e v e n when [ t h e ] c o n d u c t of] line and 402 (emphasis i s committed Cranman, 792 So. i n the 2d at scope of ... added). to So. 2d lawsuits [complained employment. " As Cranman The "beyond a u t h o r i t y " concept appears t o have been b o r r o w e d f r o m t h e law o f r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r i o r , and i t s i m p o r t and f i e l d o f o p e r a t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f i m m u n i t y law a r g u a b l y a r e g u i d e d a c c o r d i n g l y . As e x p l a i n e d i n C r a n m a n a n d c o u n t l e s s o t h e r i m m u n i t y c a s e s d e c i d e d by t h i s C o u r t , t h e whole o b j e c t of our a t t e m p t t o a r t i c u l a t e s t a n d a r d s and e x c e p t i o n s i n t h i s area is to explain under what circumstances judicial i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h o r s a n c t i o n o f an e m p l o y e e ' s conduct i s tantamount to i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h or s a n c t i o n of conduct of the State i t s e l f . J u s t as t h e c o n c e p t o f l i n e and s c o p e of e m p l o y m e n t d e s c r i b e s t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e i n w h i c h an employee's c o n d u c t i s t r e a t e d as t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e e m p l o y e r f o r p u r p o s e s of t o r t law g e n e r a l l y , i t h e l p s d e s c r i b e t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h a S t a t e e m p l o y e e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as a c t i n g " b e y o n d his or her a u t h o r i t y " f o r purposes of t h i s e x c e p t i o n to S t a t e agent immunity. 1 2 36 1080368 recognized, i t was to this end that the Court in "adopted a r u l e of q u a l i f i e d immunity d e r i v e d from DeStafney ... § 895D" and t h e r e b y " p a r t i a l l y c l o s e d the door t h a t had been opened i n Elmore A l a . 345, [v. F i e l d s , to l a w s u i t s under 402. to 153 351, such c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 45 So. 67 (1907)]" C r a n m a n , 792 So. I n Cranman and B u t t s , t h i s C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d t h e keep that "restated" 792 So. c a n do at 405. no w r o n g , on b e h a l f Elmore, partially In f r o m t h e 1907 acting within the door closed, even manner doing, this case of Elmore those Court their a u t h o r i t y and, A l a . a t 351, i n which Cranman, 45 So. recent therefore, 792 So. at 67). cases have toward the not the State are not t h e y do n o t a c t 2 d a t 400 I am (citing concerned applied the that "beyond represents steps Elmore. We cases rejected t h a t "because at Cranman, i t s a g e n t s , when c o m m i t t i n g a t o r t , of the State." 153 so a u t h o r i t y " e x c e p t i o n to State-agent immunity back as 2d decision the r u l e governing State-agent immunity. 2d rationale any, 66, of are the asked so-called in this case Cranman to decide categories into of which, i f immunity i n v e s t i g a t o r y d u t i e s o f L a c i Watson and E r i c a J a c k s o n f e l l whether any other exception 37 to State-agent immunity the nor is 1080368 applicable. "beyond The only question authority" exception presented here i s applicable. i s whether the Accordingly, I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o the main o p i n i o n ' s d e n i a l of the Watson petition and f o r the Jackson; writ otherwise of I 38 mandamus concur. as i t relates to

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.