Ex parte M. Barnett Lawley et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Jerald Drummond et al. v. M. Barnett Lawley et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/06/2009 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 1080175 Ex p a r t e M. B a r n e t t L a w l e y e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : J e r a l d Drummond e t a l . v. M. B a r n e t t Lawley e t a l . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t PER Court, CV-08-900399) CURIAM. M. Barnett Department of Lawley, the commissioner Conservation and Natural of t h e Alabama Resources ("the 1080175 Department"); Terry D e p a r t m e n t ; Hugh Park Boyd, Branyon, a writ to vacate Guin, i t s order denying f o r the of Gulf State t h e p a r k manager and p i e r ("the p e t i t i o n e r s " ) , this Court t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g to of engineering the superintendent ("the P a r k " ) ; and M i c h a e l manager o f t h e P a r k for the chief petition Court t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on t h e pleadings or Drummond, Jerald Kitchens, and negligence and wantonness against individual capacities. deny t h e p e t i t i o n . "maintain, as well parks," Code Michael Alabama We Facts J r . , Eugene ("the duties under State Pier originally extended Mexico. When the Jordan plaintiffs") alleging in their History parks," protect petitioners See § 9-2-6, 2 and m a i n t a i n are charged with A l a . Code i s located into was Alabama a l l §§ 9 - 2 - 2 ( 3 ) a n d 9 - 2 - 1 0 , A l a . ("the p i e r " ) pier Drummond, are to improve, 825 f e e t Jerald law which i n c l u d e s the Park. by d e s i g n a t i o n . by and c o n t r o l a l l s t a t e operate, The r e m a i n i n g filed the p e t i t i o n e r s and P r o c e d u r a l statutory supervise, complaint Combs as t o " p r e s e r v e , 1975. duties the Drummond, I. Lawley's dismiss in 1 975. The i n the Park; i t the waters built, these of the Gulf accordance of with 1080175 provisions o f t h e Code of Federal Regulations, the State of Alabama marked t h e p i e r w i t h a system o f l i g h t s as a p p r o v e d by the purposes. United early September Hurricane the States Ivan, seaward also 2004, According during were sustained Jerald hours Drummond, lighting on November on a 2 3 - f o o t the motorboat Drummond, who trip 1, was until 2007, the p l a i n t i f f s acute head returning with o r marked t h e most the i n the Gulf of collided J r . , a minor sustained system motorboat from a f i s h i n g injuries, by the underlying action. w h i c h was n o t l i g h t e d physical destroyed a n d was n o t r e p l a c e d of the c o l l i s i o n , by J e r a l d was In a hexagonal s t r u c t u r e at The the complaint, of the p i e r , severe the pier except Ivan passengers As a r e s u l t suffered of of the pier. In the darkness, remnants way. to f o r navigation that precipitated the nighttime Mexico. much by H u r r i c a n e the accident plaintiffs Guard leaving l i t t l e terminus destroyed after Coast the i n any allegedly serious being and t h e son o f trauma and near d r o w n i n g , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n p e r m a n e n t b r a i n damage a n d m e n t a l incapacity. On A p r i l 12, 2008, the Montgomery C i r c u i t the p l a i n t i f f s Court against 3 filed a complaint the p e t i t i o n e r s in i n their 1080175 individual capacities. n e g l i g e n c e and to reinstall the the l i g h t s on the petitioners regulations. resulted remnants navigation their not the water in complaint punitive the being at from alleged the t o do pier of nighttime, requested the by federal failure obstruction the to collision. compensatory damages in their filed a in plaintiffs this causing petitioners failure certain the of remaining the plaintiffs, warned claims petitioners' H u r r i c a n e I v a n , as to explicitly damages of were r e q u i r e d According in complaint wantonness b a s e d upon the G u l f of Mexico f o l l o w i n g alleged The The and individual capacities. On June judgment the on motion on 2008, the complaint immunity. this 9, on the October 2, a 1901, or articulated on the i n Ex of in the State hearing, 2008. a writ "absolute" or, basis The immunity the trial petitioners the based e i t h e r on immunity, under A r t . doctrine parte of Cranman, 4 So. to and for dismiss denied then they State immunity, § 14, 2d 392 the petitioned ground that I, a State-agent court State-agent 792 motion alternative, o f mandamus on immune f r o m l e g a l a c t i o n , known as petitioners pleadings Following Court f o r the Ala. also Const. immunity (Ala. are as 2000). 1080175 II. Standard o f Review "'"The appropriate standard of review under Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . , ] i s w h e t h e r , when t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f the complaint are viewed most strongly i n the pleader's f a v o r , i t appears that the p l e a d e r c o u l d prove any s e t of circumstances that would entitle [ i t ] to r e l i e f . In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , this C o u r t does n o t c o n s i d e r whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but only whether [ i t ] may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . We n o t e that a Rule 12(b)(6) d i s m i s s a l i s proper only when i t appears beyond doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can prove no s e t o f f a c t s i n support o f the c l a i m that would entitle the plaintiff to relief."'" Ex parte Knox Troy Univ., v. Western 961 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 , 108 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) World I n s . C o . , 8 93 S o . 2 d 3 2 1 , 322 2004), quoting i n t u r n Nance v. Matthews, (Ala. "A r u l i n g 1993)). without So. a presumption 2d 1147, 1148-49 (quoting on a m o t i o n of correctness." (Ala. 622 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 to dismiss i s reviewed Newman v . S a v a s , 2003). "When a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s i s made by a p a r t y , ' t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e v i e w s t h e p l e a d i n g s f i l e d i n t h e c a s e a n d , i f t h e p l e a d i n g s show t h a t no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t i s presented, the trial c o u r t w i l l enter a judgment f o r the p a r t y entitled t o a judgment according to the l a w . ' 5 (Ala. 878 1080175 B.K.W. E n t e r s . , I n c . v . T r a c t o r & E q u i p . C o . , 60 3 So. 2 d 9 8 9 , 991 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . See a l s o D e a t o n , I n c . v . M o n r o e , 762 S o . 2 d 840 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A judgment on t h e p l e a d i n g s i s s u b j e c t t o a de n o v o review. H a r d e n v . R i t t e r , 710 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 5 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997). A c o u r t r e v i e w i n g a j u d g m e n t on t h e pleadings accepts the facts stated i n the complaint as t r u e a n d v i e w s them i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e nonmoving p a r t y . I d . a t 1255-56." Universal 82-83 (Ala. "It a Underwriters I n s . Co. v . Thompson, 776 S o . 2 d 8 1 , 2000). i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t mandamus w i l l dismissal of claim sovereign immunity." 305 that i s barred "A w r i t Blankenship, the doctrine of 2004). (Ala. Ex p a r t e by l i e t o compel 893 S o . 2 d 3 0 3 , o f mandamus i s a " ' d r a s t i c and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t t h a t w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) a n i m p e r a t i v e duty upon t h e respondent to perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.'" Ex parte Wood, 852 Ex parte United Serv. (Ala. So. 2d 705, Stations, 1993)). 6 708 (Ala. I n c . , 628 2002 ) So. 2d (quoting 5 0 1 , 503 1080175 III. A. State The Immunity petitioners first subject-matter they State of contend that jurisdiction say, this State. Analysis Article action to entertain this i s , i n effect, I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . o f Alabama s h a l l the t r i a l court action an a c t i o n because, against 1901, s t a t e s n e v e r b e made a d e f e n d a n t lacks the that "the i n any c o u r t law or e q u i t y . " " ' [ I ] f an a c t i o n i s an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 14, s u c h a c a s e " p r e s e n t s a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, which c a n n o t be w a i v e d o r c o n f e r r e d b y c o n s e n t . " ' Haley v . B a r b o u r C o u n t y , 885 S o . 2 d 7 8 3 , 788 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g P a t t e r s o n v . G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 , 142-43 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . 'Therefore, a court's f a i l u r e to dismiss a case f o r lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity may p r o p e r l y be a d d r e s s e d b y a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus.' Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & R e t a r d a t i o n , 837 S o . 2 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 0 - 1 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " Ex parte What "absolute monetary State we 930 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 4 9 9 - 5 0 0 have come immunity" to refer bars claims, t o as among damages a g a i n s t : t h e S t a t e , official capacity 500. Davis, or as an a g e n t State immunity employee ( A l a . 2005). "State other a State i n h i s or of the State. See D a v i s , may b a r a n a c t i o n 7 or things, f o r agency, sued also immunity" her and a official 930 S o . 2 d a t against certain 1080175 State officials Phillips sued v . Thomas, i n their individual 555 S o . 2 d 8 1 , 83 (Ala. capacity. See 1989). " W h e t h e r i m m u n i t y s e r v e s as a d e f e n s e t o an a c t i o n against a s t a t e o f f i c e r o r employee sued i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y depends upon t h e degree t o w h i c h the a c t i o n i n v o l v e s a State i n t e r e s t . 'Our c a s e s a d h e r e t o t h e v i e w t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s an i n t e r e s t such as w i l l prohibit suit against the State o f f i c i a l o r employee where t h e a c t i o n i s , i n e f f e c t , against the State.' T a y l o r v . T r o y S t a t e U n i v . , 437 So. 2 d 4 7 2 , 474 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . "When d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a S t a t e i n t e r e s t i n a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e o f f i c i a l o r employee i n h i s or h e r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y i s s u f f i c i e n t t o t r i g g e r t h e i m m u n i t y g r a n t e d by § 14, o u r c a s e s d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e standards a p p l i e d t o those s t a t e agents or e m p l o y e e s whose p o s i t i o n s e x i s t b y v i r t u e o f l e g i s l a t i v e p r o n o u n c e m e n t a n d t h o s e who s e r v e a s t h e constitutional o f f i c e r s of this State. We h a v e h e l d t h a t S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y may b a r a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t a state agent o r employee under the p r i n c i p l e s a n n o u n c e d i n E x p a r t e C r a n m a n , 792 S o . 2 d 392 ( A l a . 2000). S e e E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 S o . 2 d 173 ( A l a . 2000) (adopting, by majority, the Cranman restatement of the rule governing State-agent immunity). However, t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t a c l a i m f o r m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s made a g a i n s t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r i n the o f f i c e r ' s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y i s b a r r e d by State immunity whenever t h e acts that are the basis of the alleged l i a b i l i t y were p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e and scope o f t h e o f f i c e r ' s employment. See, e.g., B o s h e l l v. Walker C o u n t y S h e r i f f , 598 S o . 2 d 8 4 3 , 844 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( ' a s h e r i f f , as an e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r of the State of A l a b a m a , i s immune, u n d e r A r t i c l e I , § 1 4 , o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n , f r o m s u i t b a s e d on s t a t e l a w claims a r i s i n g out of the execution of the duties of his office')." 8 1080175 Davis, 930 "'[a]n action result f o r the p l a i n t i f f property So. 2d at is one right plaintiff's (Ala. 2008) So. 2d The 873 from them i n t h e i r them individual do not indirectly. implicates entitled B. State immunity, t o a d i s m i s s a l on this and that the or the Alabama 831, v. 840 Jones, omitted). constitutional, explicitly The asserted a c t i o n does o f t h e S t a t e , and the is in 2d Univ. not are from a contract So. capacities. damages Consequently, State-Agent The seek favorable result & Mech. right a [S]tate.'" (emphasis not i n v o l v e a c o n t r a c t or p r o p e r t y plaintiffs would statutory, against when I n c . , 990 Agric. Furthermore, affect the Int'l, are claims [S]tate or ( A l a . 2004)) petitioners The money Alabama added). directly State, Harbert (quoting 867, officers. against v. of the would the recovery of Transp. (emphasis against of Dep't 895 500-01 State, not an the directly action petitioners or that are not basis. Immunity petitioners' assert as against another petition that the claims because, they say, they are e n t i t l e d t h e m a r e due This Court addressed the parameters 9 ground for their t o be dismissed to State-agent immunity. of State-agent immunity in 1080175 Ex parte opinion), Ex p a r t e Court Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 200 0 ) ( p l u r a l i t y and a d o p t e d t h e Cranman t e s t l a t e r Butts, 775 S o . 2 d 173 ( A l a . 2000). t h e same y e a r i n I n Cranman, stated: "A S t a t e agent shall b e immune from civil l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r p e r s o n a l 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 t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e agent i s b a s e d upon t h e a g e n t ' s "(1) formulating plans, p o l i c i e s , or designs; or "(2) e x e r c i s i n g h i s o r h e r judgment i n the administration of a department or agency of government, i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , examples such a s : "(a) making adjudications; "(b) allocating "(c) negotiating administrative resources; 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 d e p a r t m e n t agency by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n , i n s o f a r or as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r 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) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f the c r i m i n a l laws o f t h e S t a t e , i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , law-enforcement o f f i c e r s ' a r r e s t i n g or attempting to arrest persons; or 10 this 1080175 "(5) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e d i s c h a r g e of d u t i e s imposed by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n i n r e l e a s i n g prisoners, counseling or r e l e a s i n g persons of unsound mind, or e d u c a t i n g students. "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary i n the f o r e g o i n g statement of the r u l e , a State agent s h a l l n o t b e immune f r o m c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r personal 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 t h e U n i t e d States, or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of r e g u l a t i n g the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or "(2) when the State agent acts 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 , beyond h i s or h e r a u t h o r i t y , o r under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e l a w . " Cranman, 792 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 5 . In d e t e r m i n i n g particular case, whether State-agent i t must be k e p t immunity a p p l i e s i n mind that "'[t]his Court has established a " b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g " p r o c e s s when a p a r t y r a i s e s t h e defense of State-agent immunity.' Ex p a r t e Estate o f R e y n o l d s , 946 S o . 2 d 4 5 0 , 452 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . A State agent a s s e r t i n g State-agent immunity 'bears the burden of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e 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 e n t i t l e the State agent t o immunity.' 946 S o . 2 d a t 4 5 2 . Should the State a g e n t make 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 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 o n e o f t h e two c a t e g o r i e s o f e x c e p t i o n s to State-agent i m m u n i t y r e c o g n i z e d i n Cranman i s a p p l i c a b l e . " Ex parte Kennedy, 992 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 2 - 8 3 11 (Ala. 2008). in a 1080175 The p e t i t i o n e r s h a v e b e e n s u e d b a s e d on a c t i o n s their duties of the plaintiffs' maintain pier, claims or to r e i n s t a l l actions plans, the i n the Department. that policies, including, but of not 792 further, however, they were The conduct that So. meet falls or either to ... "exercising or "formulating judgment agency government, resources." allocating We need not address t h i s the the initial in a plaintiffs concede qualification function that of would in of ... c o n t e n d , however, within a the exception "State Cranman, p r e v i o u s l y by t h i s authority to related to because to issue that the showing entitle that them to immunity. e x i s t s when pursuant failure s y s t e m on t h e r e m n a n t s o f t h e a department 792 agent So. i n t h i s case, the p l a i n t i f f s her petitioners' a t 405. plaintiffs authority." the i s the basis limited 2d engaged State-agent be or designs" Cranman, petitioners is a light could administration The c o n d u c t t h a t involving Court that when the detailed to acts the p e t i t i o n e r s ' State-agent ... 2d a t 405. beyond More immunity h i s or her specifically, r e l y on t h e p r i n c i p l e a r t i c u l a t e d a State agent rules that or 12 fails agent acts beyond h i s or "'to discharge regulations, such duties as those 1080175 stated 1046, on a 1052 checklist.'" ( A l a . 2003) Giambrone (quoting Ex v. parte Douglas, Butts, 874 775 So. So. 2d 2d at 178). The their plaintiffs authority regard to "give the the by owner's apply that the to an u r g e d by The would the of a hurricane or a basis the or f o r the as ... the to t h i s apply as to to a the Court, do not whether structure disaster i f the with in regulations natural w o u l d be duties detailed structure to beyond nor what regulations did t h i s b a s i s , the p e t i t i o n e r s argue are not sufficiently exception to detailed State-agent to immunity plaintiffs. e n t i t y places United "apply a other responsibilities On their aids that continue federal regulations a person discharge In t h e i r p e t i t i o n owner federal regulations as to navigational post-destruction." qualify must failing p e t i t i o n e r s contend regulations the t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r s acted Regulations. guidance destroyed of by maintaining Code o f F e d e r a l however, maintain States, for the Coast at i s s u e here r e q u i r e a structure owner or Guard s t r u c t u r e " ; s u c h m a r k i n g s m u s t be 13 i n the operator that before navigable waters of authorization a p p r o v e d by the structure to mark "the the Commander 1080175 of the Coast located. lights Guard District" i n which 33 C.F.R. § § 6 4 . 2 1 a n d 6 6 . 0 1 - 5 . and other signals placed in State o f Alabama p l a c e d the waters the structure with Guard. pier lights Both p a r t i e s require that established removed." As and that 33 C.F.R. § before i n 2004. "structures" are much of the p i e r ... was regulations t o be r e q u i r e d until on t h e shall be [ t ] h e structure i s 64.23. Ivan destroyed much o f t h e on t h e p i e r . The federal " t h emarking of s t r u c t u r e s , sunken vessels obstructions 33 to equip system The f e d e r a l determined and a l l t h e l i g h t i n g navigation." i t was r e q u i r e d the l i g h t i n g mentioned above, H u r r i c a n e other T h u s , when had been approved by t h e Coast that maintained regulations require and of Mexico, Ivan "[m]arkings ... f o r the p i e r o f f the shore of the Park concede by H u r r i c a n e "Markings" are "the 33 C.F.R. § 6 4 . 0 6 . had the r e q u i s i t e approval destroyed pier of the Gulf i s t o be on o r n e a r s t r u c t u r e s the p r o t e c t i o n of n a v i g a t i o n . " the the structure C.F.R. "any system for the protection § 64.01. fixed or In floating of this maritime context, obstruction, i n t e n t i o n a l l y placed i n t h e w a t e r , w h i c h may i n t e r f e r e w i t h o r restrict navigation," maritime 14 and "obstructions" are 1080175 "anything that navigation." and restricts, 33 C.F.R. § 64.06. t h e p e t i t i o n e r s do n o t d i s p u t e pier q u a l i f y as a " s t r u c t u r e . " markings f o r structures the endangers, appropriate Guard]." -- t h a t Like plaintiffs taken together, command lights navigable cannot We waters The r e g u l a t i o n s presented with by that because States Coast stipulate these must be p r e s e n t without the that ... [ t h e ] o b s t r u c t i o n i s the i n the United be r e m o v e d agree l i g h t s , the federal regulations, implicate the "beyond-authority" exception immunity -¬ 64.16. contend State-agent that contend must be " a p p r o v e d b y D i s t r i c t Commander [ o f t h e U n i t e d 33 C.F.R. § with t h e remnants of t h e the o r i g i n a l " [ m ] a r k i n g s s h a l l be m a i n t a i n e d u n t i l The interferes The p l a i n t i f f s and o b s t r u c t i o n s 33 C.F.R. § 6 4 . 1 3 . removed." or regulations and t h a t the approval plaintiffs. the p e t i t i o n e r s that explicitly on an o b s t r u c t i o n States We those of the Coast reject these to the regulations i n the lights Guard. 1 argument do n o t As t h e p l a i n t i f f s o b s e r v e , t h e r e g u l a t i o n s n e e d n o t be i n t h e f o r m o f an a c t u a l c h e c k l i s t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a S t a t e agent has acted beyond h i s or h e r a u t h o r i t y . I n d e e d , i n two of t h e c a s e s commonly c i t e d f o r t h i s e x c e p t i o n t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity Giambrone v. D o u g l a s , s u p r a , and Howard v. C i t y o f A t m o r e , 887 S o . 2 d 2 0 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) t h e r u l e s a t i s s u e were not i n t h e form o f a c h e c k l i s t . 1 15 1080175 sufficiently guide under circumstances the sufficiently the detailed exception authority In Court the of to v. addressed in as Davis, the an owner 537 a thus structure are for acts beyond So. 2d 7, availability of what Department of in 9 a ( A l a . 1 988 ) , was the then this known as failure-to-maintain Transportation). The Court (now held: "The e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t once the defendants determine that repairs are needed, they share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of r a n k i n g the v a r i o u s p r o j e c t s , b a s e d on f a c t o r s t h a t i n c l u d e t h e ones enumerated above, v i z . , the type of d e f e c t , the particular road in question, and the economic resources and manpower available. While the d e f e n d a n t s ' d u t y t o m a i n t a i n and r e p a i r t h e r o a d s i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y , t h e y m u s t e x e r c i s e a d e g r e e o f discretion in the process of ranking various p r o j e c t s by p r i o r i t y . I d e a l l y , the s l i g h t e s t d e f e c t w o u l d be r e p a i r e d i m m e d i a t e l y s o t h a t t h e h i g h w a y s w o u l d , a t a l l t i m e s , be m a i n t a i n e d a t t h e g r e a t e s t level of safety. Reality, however, poses l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e t i m e , m a n p o w e r , a n d financial r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e f o r making the needed r e p a i r s . I t i s under these l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t the defendants m u s t a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t y t o be g i v e n t h e v a r i o u s d e f e c t s t h a t a r e d i s c o v e r e d , and r a n k t h e i r r e p a i r so a s t o a c h i e v e t h e o p t i m u m l e v e l o f s a f e t y possible under a l l circumstances. While the Department's 'Field Operations Manual' provides 16 of employee. a g a i n s t employees of the S t a t e Highway Department the Alabama not a basis for application or immunity of and Cranman State o f f i c i a l "discretionary-function" action of presented serve recognized the Grant actions 1080175 c r i t e r i a b y w h i c h t h e s e d e c i s i o n s a r e t o b e made, i n the final analysis a significant degree of discretion i s left to the defendants i n their exercise of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r function. We f i n d t h a t the a p p e l l a n t s ' d u t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r e p a i r and m a i n t e n a n c e f u n c t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y p a r t a k e o f planning l e v e l a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g the exercise of discretion, and the defendants are therefore e n t i t l e d t o s u b s t a n t i v e i m m u n i t y as a m a t t e r o f l a w on p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n a n d repair. T h u s , t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r JNOV [now c a l l e d a judgment as a m a t t e r o f law] s h o u l d have been g r a n t e d as t o t h o s e c l a i m s . " Grant See, has been cited e . g . , Ex p a r t e with approval Estate i n the post-Cranman e r a . of Reynolds, 946 S o . 2 d 450 (Ala. 2006). Notwithstanding petitioners pier entail, and policies administration materials that the In and by exercise i n Grant us t h a t at issue, the the t r i a l to this a claim motion, the formulation of of judgment plans in the involving the a l l o c a t i o n of and R e y n o l d s , support t h i s us i n t h i s to state regard the things, of the Department before i s before failure among o t h e r Unlike denial regulations argue t h a t t h e i r acts and o m i s s i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o the resources. the federal we argument. have here Instead, no a l l case i s a request for relief from court of a motion to dismiss for or f o r a judgment the t r i a l 17 court on t h e pleadings. was p r e s e n t e d with 1080175 little more t h a n discussed (a) t h e s u b s t a n c e i n this opinion and of the f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s (b) t h e f a c t of the three-year d e l a y between t h e p a r t i a l d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e p i e r by Ivan and t h e a c c i d e n t materials presented giving rise to the t r i a l to this court cannot conclude that the t r i a l ground immunity or State-agent the of State complaint judgment before We on the pleadings; t h e r e f o r e deny Cobb, and t o t h i s the Court, we state a immunity, claim f o r a l l that or to dismiss to appears, enter the a case d i s r e g a r d of a f e d e r a l mandate. the p e t i t i o n . DENIED. C . J . , and a n d Shaw, Murdock, Given c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g , on t h e to i t was o n e o f a s i m p l e PETITION Parker, for failure action. Hurricane Lyons, Woodall, J J . , concur. J . , concurs specially. 18 Stuart, Smith, Bolin, 1080175 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e The of only question acts of a authority,'" 2000) identified as that i m m u n i t y -- or State-agent I am the to otherwise as ... Ex i s committed parte Watson, [Ms. "'beyond 2d 173, So. We immunity his or 177-78 (Ala. 392, not do have b e f o r e categories i n the 405 her 2d of first entitle them (Ala. us immunity instance t o w h e t h e r any to -¬ State-agent other recent a p p l i c a t i o n s by exception to State-agent against in State-agent writ exception is applicable. that exception articulated f o r the p e t i t i o n e r s were engaged i n a would into State c o n d u c t t h a t f a l l s w i t h i n one immunity the the question immunity actions 792 is applicable concede t h a t any So. case. of to are 775 Cranman, which concerned that transformed to that Butts, parte "beyond-authority" door employee i n Cranman plaintiffs function Ex in this petition exception is applicable in this question the the parte (quoting 2000)), any State Ex specially). presented mandamus i s w h e t h e r for to (concurring in the Court immunity employees categories Cranman, "'even line scope and 1080368, Oct. that 30, when of ... 2009] are of of have a mechanism f o r r e o p e n i n g of the 19 this based the on State-agent [that] conduct employment.'" So. 3d , 1080175 (Ala. 2009) dissenting in (Murdock, part (quoting emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . i n my before or My Cranman, concerns are foregoing us, concerns however, and, are for a judgment development petition not that would does the be not subject Compare argue that Giambrone City of 2003); Gowens v . Tys. S., denying the state claim a conclude petitioners' or issues presented Atmore, for by a that motion judgment the on petition on 2d So. 2d 201, 513, 522 factual the exception the ground to 1046 (Ala. 203 (Ala. (Ala. 2006). trial court dismiss for the of claim Similarly, erred in failure to given the pleadings, t h a t motion, I concur i n the main 20 here limited So. the on here. to s t a t e a 874 2d to detail directed specifically 887 So. 402 ; review petitioner Douglas, 948 at 2d beyond-authority not and repeated in best. particular v. v. based at the r e g u l a t i o n s are cannot voiced part i n more be for failure difficult Howard I need not pleadings 2003); Because So. even i f they were, our a p p l i c a b l e t o any the him. on 7 92 in explained not d e n i a l of a motion to d i s m i s s was concurring s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n Watson and The the J., opinion.

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.