City of Montgomery v. Mary Ann Patterson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 5/20/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama 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 ((334) 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 . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090960 C i t y o f Montgomery v. Mary Ann P a t t e r s o n Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-08-1770) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . The judgment, City o f Montgomery entered Montgomery C i r c u i t Mary Ann P a t t e r s o n , after ("the C i t y " ) an o r e t e n u s Court entered i nher c i v i l appeals proceeding, i n favor from a ofthe of the p l a i n t i f f , action against theCity i n 2090960 w h i c h she asserted a s i n g l e negligence c l a i m ; the t r i a l court r u l e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d r e c o v e r $35,500 f r o m t h e C i t y , a damages amount p l a c i n g t h e C i t y ' s a p p e a l w i t h i n t h i s court's e x c l u s i v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, 10. We reverse cause f o r the the entry trial court's § 12-3¬ judgment and remand the of a judgment d i s m i s s i n g the plaintiff's action. The her p l a i n t i f f s u e d t h e C i t y i n November 2008, a l l e g i n g i n complaint that she had been football game in November 2006 football stadium operated by complaint further alleged injured while that the that, City, while standing i n a concession-stand l i n e date question, in striking complaint her that n e g l i g e n c e and City an overhead head. The her injuries that she had had at window plaintiff were the been attending played Cramton the that Bowl; the was f a c i l i t y on the collapsed, averred r e s u l t of filed a verified a plaintiff covering also at a in the City's claim with i n F e b r u a r y 2007 f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n t h e r e f o r . 1 The her the City Two s e c t i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a Code, t a k e n t o g e t h e r , r e q u i r e t h e p r e s e n t m e n t o f s u c h a c l a i m w i t h i n s i x months o f the a c c r u a l o f a t o r t c a u s e o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t a m u n i c i p a l body as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to the f i l i n g of a c i v i l a c t i o n a s s e r t i n g t h a t claim. See A l a . Code 1975, §§ 11-47-23 and 11-47-192. 1 2 2090960 filed a motion complaint limiting to failed dismiss to alleging state a claim, that statutes l i a b i l i t y o f owners o f p r e m i s e s u s e d f o r s p o r t i n g 11-23); however, answered the that motion complaint, a f f i r m a t i v e defenses. The was t h a t m o t i o n was also trial of then statutes as recreational-use statutes; denied.3 the plaintiff's and 1975, those City 35¬ c o u r t t h e n h e l d an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g on the testified The or C i t y t h e r e a f t e r moved f o r a summary r e l y i n g upon t h e The §§ 35-11-22 and denied. asserting judgment, a g a i n Code plaintiff's r e l y i n g upon r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s (see A l a . Code 1975, merits the had her § claim. counsel had 11-47-190, as After rested, well as the the plaintiff City, citing the Ala. recreational-use s t a t u t e s , o r a l l y sought a " d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t " ( a c t u a l l y , o r a l l y requested the entry of a j u d g m e n t on R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 2d 770, 772 asserting & n.1 that the agent, o f f i c e r , the C i t y had denied the (Ala. findings; see and R a g s d a l e v. R a g s d a l e , 991 So. Civ. plaintiff App. had partial 2008)) failed o r e m p l o y e e i n t h e l i n e and acted City's in a negligent request, and 3 the manner. to in its show favor, that any scope of work f o r The trial court C i t y then presented i t s 2090960 case. At the close of the t r i a l , the C i t y again r a i s e d the s t a t u t e s i t had c i t e d i n i t s r e q u e s t f o r a " d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t " as a basis thereafter f o r a judgment rendered a i n i t s favor. judgment i n favor The of the trial court plaintiff, a w a r d i n g h e r $35,500 i n damages. B e c a u s e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, § 11-47-190, is placed squarely i n i s s u e b y t h e p a r t i e s , we q u o t e f r o m i t s pertinent portions at length: "No c i t y o r town s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r damages f o r i n j u r y done t o o r w r o n g s u f f e r e d b y any p e r s o n o r c o r p o r a t i o n , u n l e s s s u c h i n j u r y o r wrong was done o r suffered through the neglect, carelessness, or u n s k i l l f u l n e s s o f some a g e n t , o f f i c e r , o r e m p l o y e e of t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y engaged i n work t h e r e f o r and while a c t i n g i n the l i n e of h i s or her duty, or u n l e s s t h e s a i d i n j u r y o r w r o n g was done o r s u f f e r e d through the neglect or carelessness or f a i l u r e to remedy some d e f e c t i n t h e s t r e e t s , a l l e y s , p u b l i c ways, o r b u i l d i n g s a f t e r t h e same h a d b e e n c a l l e d t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e c o u n c i l o r o t h e r g o v e r n i n g body or after t h e same h a d existed f o r such an unreasonable length of time as to raise a p r e s u m p t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e o f s u c h d e f e c t on t h e p a r t of t h e c o u n c i l o r o t h e r g o v e r n i n g body " Speaking eight years after the incorporation of the p r e d e c e s s o r o f § 11-47-190 i n t o t h e 1907 A l a b a m a Code, J u s t i c e Thomas C. M c C l e l l a n summarized the e f f e c t of the s t a t u t e : "By Code 1907, § 1273 [now c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 1 1 - 4 7 - 1 9 0 ] , t h e l i a b i l i t y o f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r damages f o r i n j u r i e s done o r s u f f e r e d i s l i m i t e d 4 2090960 t o two d i s t i n c t c l a s s e s o f n e g l i g e n t m i s c o n d u c t o r o m i s s i o n , v i z . : (a) Where t h e w r o n g done o r s u f f e r e d was t h e p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t o f c u l p a b l e a c t o r o m i s s i o n o f some a g e n t , o f f i c e r , o r e m p l o y e e e n g a g e d , w i t h i n the l i n e of h i s duty, i n t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s s e r v i c e ; (b) where t h e wrong done o r s u f f e r e d was t h e proximate r e s u l t of culpable municipal omission ' t o remedy some d e f e c t i n t h e s t r e e t s , a l l e y s , p u b l i c ways, o r b u i l d i n g s , a f t e r t h e same ( i . e . , d e f e c t as d e f i n e d ) has been c a l l e d t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e c o u n c i l , o r a f t e r t h e same ( i . e . , d e f e c t as d e f i n e d ) had e x i s t e d f o r s u c h u n r e a s o n a b l e l e n g t h o f t i m e as to r a i s e a presumption o f knowledge o f such d e f e c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e c o u n c i l . ' ... I n t h e f i r s t c l a s s (a) a r e wrongs o r i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m n e g l i g e n c e of agents, e t c . , of the m u n i c i p a l i t y , consistent w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e o f [ r e s p o n d e a t ] s u p e r i o r ; and i n t h e s e c o n d c l a s s (b) a r e w r o n g [ s ] o r i n j u r i e s f o r which the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are only liable for c u l p a b l e n e g l e c t t o remedy a c o n d i t i o n n e g l i g e n t l y c r e a t e d o r made o r a l l o w e d t o e x i s t b y a p e r s o n o r corporation not related i n service to the m u n i c i p a l i t y a stranger to the municipal service or f u n c t i o n . " C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. C a r l e , 191 A l a . 539, 541-42, 68 So. 22, 23 890, (1915); accord 891-92 In Ellison v . Town o f B r o o k s i d e , ( A l a . 1985). attacking the correctness of the judgment, t h e C i t y a s s e r t s t h a t l i a b i l i t y attach under liability present employee 481 So. 2d the f i r s t because, evidence of the City t h e two says, demonstrating of the C i t y , through 5 trial could not properly statutory classes of failed to officer, or carelessness, or the p l a i n t i f f that an a g e n t , negligence, court's 2090960 u n s k i l l f u l n e s s , c a u s e d h e r i n j u r y so as t o w a r r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n of the doctrine asserts that of liability says, demonstrating not the failed attach present governing City's to b o d y had c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of the e x i s t e n c e employment" evidence actual of a d e f e c t i v e arising within the line and of liability); she she [municipal] scope ( i . e . , conduct f a l l i n g w i t h i n the f i r s t c l a s s of m u n i c i p a l or condition In response, the p l a i n t i f f contends t h a t adduced s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e of the " n e g l i g e n c e employees further the plaintiff properly City the that a t Cramton Bowl. The under the could superior. s t a t u t o r y c l a s s e s of l i a b i l i t y because, s e c o n d o f t h e two City respondeat then p o s i t s that of their statutory because, i n her view, the C i t y or i t s employees " a f f i r m a t i v e l y c r e a t e d t h e d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n " so as t o o b v i a t e t h e n e e d f o r n o t i c e , the plaintiff had actual second or was not required constructive prong. In other to demonstrate that knowledge of words, we do a defect not the under perceive p l a i n t i f f to contend t h a t the C i t y i s l i a b l e under the prong because of a failure a f t e r having notice thereof; to remedy a d a n g e r o u s r a t h e r , we 6 City the the second condition view the p l a i n t i f f as 2090960 contending s o l e l y that the C i t y i s l i a b l e respondeat s u p e r i o r under the f i r s t "The four well-known any n e g l i g e n c e under p r i n c i p l e s of prong. 2 elements necessary f o r recovery in a c t i o n a r e : (1) e x i s t e n c e o f a d u t y on t h e p a r t of the defendant; (2) a b r e a c h o f t h a t d u t y ; (3) e x i s t e n c e of a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t and t h e plaintiff's injury; plaintiff." Chatman v. C i t y o f P r i c h a r d , 431 So. 2d 532, (Ala. 1983). affix liability and Because (4) a resulting the p l a i n t i f f in this injury only alleged the agent negligence the 533 case sought upon t h e C i t y f o r t h e a l l e g e d c o n d u c t o f o r more o f t h e C i t y ' s a l l e g e d a g e n t s o r e m p l o y e e s , not to common-law b u r d e n or action, employee see of would Stephens v. 3 liable to one she b o r e demonstrating that be to her C i t y of B u t l e r , that in 509 a F. O u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m i s b a s e d upon respondeat superior rather than a f a i l u r e t o remedy a d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n t h u s r e n d e r s moot t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r , as t h e p l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s , t h e C i t y has i m p r o p e r l y r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e C i t y ' s g o v e r n i n g body was p l a c e d on s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e t o w a r r a n t l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e s e c o n d p r o n g o f § 11-47-190. 2 A p a r t y , s u c h as t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s c a s e , i s p e r m i t t e d by s t a t u t e t o a l l e g e i n any p l e a d i n g t h a t a n o t h e r p a r t y , s u c h as t h e C i t y , c o m m i t t e d an a c t and t o p r o v e t h a t t h a t p a r t y ' s employee or agent a c t u a l l y committed the a c t a t i s s u e . See A l a . Code 1975, § 6-5-300. 3 7 2090960 Supp. 2d 1098, 240 1116 (S.D. A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , a f f ' d , ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2008) Federal Reporter), (not s e l e c t e d an employee amounted of the C i t y ; to, in the and was, of o r u n s k i l l f u l n e s s ... for (a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t the C i t y i n fact, § carelessness, Appx. o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g (a) (b) t h a t words Fed. f o r p u b l i c a t i o n i n the but a l s o the burden t h a t t h e a l l e g e d a g e n t o r employee 261 an a g e n t o r the actor's 11-47-190, [while] negates conduct "neglect, engaged i n work" the p o t e n t i a l f o r v i c a r i o u s m u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y as t o i n t e n t i o n a l t o r t c l a i m s as well as t o c l a i m s based agents or employees upon c o n d u c t amounting 509 F. Supp. 2d a t 1116. court entered implication, a judgment indicates that So. 2d 950, 953 to wantonness). by See a city's Stephens, Of c o u r s e , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e in favor that e l e m e n t s t o have b e e n met. 938 committed See of court the trial plaintiff, deemed e a c h o f t h o s e F r a n k l i n v. C i t y o f A t h e n s , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) (plurality opinion q u o t i n g C a l v e r t F i r e I n s . Co. v. G r e e n , 278 A l a . 673, 677, So. 2d 269, 273 renders insufficient'"), 180 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t , i n an a c t i o n involving a negligence claim, [element] by a aff'd, " ' [ t ] h e a b s e n c e o f any one complaint 938 bad So. 2d 959 8 or the ( A l a . 2006). ... evidence 2090960 Viewing the record p l a i n t i f f , a s we must (Ala. The in a light most favorable to the (see D r i v e r v . H i c e , 618 So. 2d 129, 131 C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ) , we n o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t plaintiff, who held U n i v e r s i t y home f o o t b a l l football season tickets facts. t o Alabama State games, a r r i v e d v i a a u t o m o b i l e game i n November 2006 w i t h a n e i g h b o r ; at a she p a i d t o p a r k i n t h e m u n i c i p a l p a r k i n g l o t a d j a c e n t t o Cramton Bowl and entered the stadium. Once inside the stadium gates, the p l a i n t i f f d e c i d e d t o p u r c h a s e some t o r t i l l a c h i p s , c h e e s e , a n d a soft drink, stadium a n d s h e p l a c e d an o r d e r f o r t h o s e c o n c e s s i o n - s t a n d window. items As t h e p l a i n t i f f at a handed c u r r e n c y t h r o u g h t h e window t o t h e c o n c e s s i o n a t t e n d a n t t o p a y for that order, the p l a i n t i f f ' s h e a d was s t r u c k b y a "real t h i c k b o a r d " t h a t h a d been l o c a t e d over t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s head, approximately location; 10 feet above the stadium t h e p l a i n t i f f was s t u n n e d floor at that f o r a few m i n u t e s b y t h e impact of t h e blow. The s o l e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f c o n c e r n i n g a n y potential involvement by a C i t y employee i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n c i d e n t was h e r t e s t i m o n y t h a t , b e f o r e s h e h a d l e f t t h e concession s t a n d , "a young man," who " e v i d e n t l y was w o r k i n g 9 2090960 with the concession "stand right stand," [t]here" supervisor." approached h e r and t o l d because The p l a i n t i f f he was "going also t e s t i f i e d her to to get that [his] t h e man h a d i d e n t i f i e d h i m s e l f as a w o r k e r f o r t h e C i t y named "Mr. Hooks." The plaintiff the supervisor, but s h e d i d s t a t e t h a t s h e h a d a t t e m p t e d t o r e m a i n a t t h e game following s t a t e d t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t remember t h e name o f whom s h e d e s c r i b e d the i n j u r y until as b e i n g the pain a "white i n h e r head male," became u n b e a r a b l e , a f t e r which she sought m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n a t l o c a l hospitals. In denying the City's p a r t i a l findings, the t r i a l testimony that "[h]e opining stand municipal "[s]omebody caused" t h e b o a r d The t r i a l the doctrine of res ipsa court p a r t , " and t h e c o u r t fell, i t was n e g l i g e n c e ruled that 10 over further loquitur i n "whoever was i n c h a r g e o f ... o p e r a t i o n and t h e [board] on c o u r t r e l i e d upon t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s window t o f a l l . sua sponte, that f o r a judgment was g o i n g t o g e t a s u p e r v i s o r , " a n d suggested that the concession-stand invoked, request "Mr. Hooks" h a d s a i d t h a t he was a employee and t h a t that court oral of the on somebody's " i f Hooks w o r k s f o r t h e C i t y 2090960 and goes a n d g e t s h i s s u p e r v i s o r who w o r k s f o r t h e C i t y , gets [the p l a i n t i f f ] In past [the C i t y ' s ] that motion." C a r r i o v . Denson, 689 So. 2d 121, 123 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , we n o t e d t h a t r e s i p s a l o q u i t u r , a d o c t r i n e whose name means " ' t h e t h i n g s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f , ' " party t o prove "essentially allows a n e g l i g e n c e by u s i n g c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence" and t h a t , " [ u ] n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e f a c t - f i n d e r c a n i n f e r n e g l i g e n c e from s u r r o u n d i n g f a c t s i f t h e e x a c t cause o f an i n j u r y i s unknown o r u n k n o w a b l e " b e c a u s e o f t h e o p e r a t i o n of the doctrine. In this t h a t caused t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s board that f e l l application of following three from case, because t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y i n j u r y i s u n d i s p u t e d l y known above a c o n c e s s i o n - s t a n d window the doctrine depends upon proof a the of the elements: " ' ( 1 ) [ T ] h e d e f e n d a n t must have h a d f u l l management and c o n t r o l o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y w h i c h c a u s e d t h e injury; (2) t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s must be s u c h t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o common k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e o f mankind t h e a c c i d e n t c o u l d n o t have happened i f t h o s e h a v i n g c o n t r o l o f t h e management h a d n o t been negligent; (3) t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r y must have r e s u l t e d from t h e a c c i d e n t . ' " Id. ( q u o t i n g K h i r i e h v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . So. 2d 1220, 1223 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . 11 I n s . Co., 594 2090960 The only person actually an a g e n t o f t h e C i t y i n t h i s by h e r as b e i n g presence left According presentation case, worker her presence t o testimony of evidence, as "Mr. Hooks," i s d e s c r i b e d a concession-stand and then superior. i d e n t i f i e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f who i n order entered her to notify a adduced d u r i n g t h e C i t y ' s however, the concession stand i s o p e r a t e d by employees o f t h e C i t y ' s f o o d - s e r v i c e s department, a d e p a r t m e n t t h a t was i d e n t i f i e d City's parks-and-recreation Cramton Bowl use). the department f a c i l i t y to local Notably, as b e i n g he was (which nothing i n the record i n this employed by from t h e provides the educational institutions precise job responsibilities that separate case i n d i c a t e s o f "Mr. H o o k s , " much the City t o be Cramton Bowl. brief, Indeed, as t h e C i t y notes t h e r e c o r d a l s o l a c k s any e v i d e n c e less responsible f o r i n s p e c t i n g o r s e c u r i n g b o a r d s l o c a t e d above c o n c e s s i o n in to in its showing stands opening precisely how t h e b o a r d h a d b e e n s e c u r e d when i t h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n i t s initial rope, position a latch, evidence above t h e p l a i n t i f f or other means), (whether by a c h a i n , a and t h e r e i s likewise no r e v e a l i n g t h a t "Mr. Hooks" o r some o t h e r e m p l o y e e o r a g e n t o f t h e C i t y p u l l e d down t h e b o a r d 12 onto t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s 2090960 head o r i m p r o p e r l y secured the board above h e r h e a d on t h e day o f h e r i n j u r y . The trial omissions "[i]f the were fatal did not believe [board] fell to the p l a i n t i f f ' s as a evidentiary case, stating stand r e s u l t of not meeting ... a In making that statement, c o u r t assumed a f a c t n o t i n e v i d e n c e : that [and] i f reasonable o f s e c u r i n g t h e [ b o a r d ] , " t h e p l a i n t i f f was recover. fell those t h e C i t y was m a n a g i n g t h e c o n c e s s i o n standard to court however, entitled the trial that the board a c t u a l l y b e c a u s e some e m p l o y e e o r a g e n t o f t h e C i t y a c t e d manner t o b r e a c h a s t a n d a r d of care in a owed t o t h e p l a i n t i f f by f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y s e c u r e t h e b o a r d so t h a t i t w o u l d n o t f a l l and h i t c o n c e s s i o n - s t a n d res ipsa loquitur inference only that in could Although the doctrine of appropriate cases, permit a c t must h a v e o c c u r r e d have committed and i t , the an that doctrine t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t c o u l d n o t have h a p p e n e d i f t h o s e having control "'[i]f one have can, a negligent the defendant requires customers. t h e management can r e a s o n a b l y happened defendant[], of without any conclude had not that negligence been negligent: the accident on the part could of the t h e n t h e r e s i p s a l o q u i t u r [ d o c t r i n e ] does n o t 13 2090960 apply.'" So. 3d Edosomwan v. A.B.C. D a y c a r e & K i n d e r g a r t e n , 591, Crabtree 594 (Ala. Civ. App. I n d u s . Waste, I n c . , 728 2009) So. Inc., (quoting 2d 155, 158 Ex (Ala. parte 1998)). H e r e , b e c a u s e o f t h e p a u c i t y o f e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d by plaintiff, i t i s not p r o p e r t o conclude t h a t the board struck plaintiff the negligence the C i t y . o f "Mr. could have fallen only Hooks" o r some o t h e r because the that of the employee or agent because of a manufacturing defect, a c h a i n t h a t p u l l e d away f r o m a hook b e c a u s e o f a s u d d e n unpredictable gust internal structural the an observer. of wind, or by a metal latch that i n t e g r i t y i n a manner t h a t was B e c a u s e i t was i n c i d e n t i n which the not e m p l o y e e o f t h e C i t y , we was injured and lost case that could have on t h e p a r t o f an a g e n t o r cannot agree w i t h the t r i a l court's i n v o c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of res i p s a l o q u i t u r to supply element unskillfulness" on committed i n the order to a f f i x of the line and liability "neglect, part of such carelessness, an employee scope of h i s or her upon t h e 14 by invisible shown i n t h i s plaintiff o c c u r r e d o n l y because of negligence necessary of F o r e x a m p l e , t h e b o a r d c o u l d had b e e n h e l d i n p l a c e by a r o p e t h a t g a v e way to 32 City. In or the or agent employment i n the absence of 2090960 proof City o f a n e g l i g e n t a c t c o m m i t t e d b y a p e r s o n as t o whom t h e may p r o p e r l y be h e l d w h i c h s u c h an i n f e r e n c e plaintiff Based vicariously could properly was n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r upon the foregoing conclude that the t r i a l liable facts or proof from h a v e b e e n drawn, t h e u n d e r § 11-47-190. and a u t h o r i t i e s , we c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g i t s judgment in favor of thep l a i n t i f f . That judgment i s r e v e r s e d , c a u s e i s remanded f o r t h e t r i a l court t o enter and t h e a judgment i n favor of the City. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t , without writings. 15
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.
