Ex parte Phenix City Board of Education. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/14/2011 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 , 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, 2010-2011 1100122 Ex p a r t e P h e n i x C i t y Board of Education PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( I n r e : A l a y s i a R a n d o l p h , a m i n o r , by a n d t h r o u g h h e r n e x t f r i e n d s a n d p a r e n t s , Samuel R a n d o l p h a n d Wanda R a n d o l p h v. K i m b e r l y Sue Montee a n d t h e Phenix C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n ) 1100124 Ex p a r t e P h e n i x C i t y Board of Education PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : K e n y e t t a K i n g , a m i n o r , by and t h r o u g h h e r n e x t f r i e n d and p a r e n t , O l i t h a K i n g v. K i m b e r l y Sue Montee and t h e Phenix C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n ) 1100125 Ex p a r t e P h e n i x C i t y Board of Education PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : E r i c R o b i n s o n , a m i n o r , by and t h r o u g h h i s n e x t f r i e n d and p a r e n t , J a c k i e Woods, e t a l . v. K i m b e r l y Sue Montee and t h e Phenix C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n ) (Russell STUART, C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-10-206, CV-10-208, and CV-10-204) Justice. The Phenix petitions this City Court Board of f o r writs Education ("the o f mandamus Board") directing the R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court t o vacate i t s orders denying the Board's motion to dismiss Randolph, parents, a minor, the actions by Samuel Randolph and filed through against her next a n d Wanda R a n d o l p h 2 i t by Alaysia friends and (case no. CV-10- 1100122, 1100124, 206); Kenyetta and parent, 1100125 King, Olitha a minor, by and through King (case no. her next CV-10-208); Robinson, Nyesha Robinson, N a s i a Robinson, and N a d i a minors, by and through Woods, and next a n d Tamor Woods, a m i n o r , next friends, claims against friend and and p a r e n t , by and through orders the Board. We Eric Robinson, Jackie h i s parents J a c k i e Woods a n d C h r i s t o p h e r Woods CV-10-204), and t o e n t e r the their friend (case no. dismissing with prejudice the grant the petitions and i s s u e writs. Factual Background and P r o c e d u r a l On M a r c h 2, 2 0 1 0 , K i m b e r l y Board, was d r i v i n g King, and E r i c Nadia Robinson, passengers accident on with Woods m i n o r s Montee, a n d Tamor the school A l a y s i a Randolph, Nyesha Robinson, Woods bus filed Nasia ( " t h e Woods when a stationary vehicle. alleging entrustment, Sue M o n t e e , a n e m p l o y e e o f t h e a school bus. Robinson, History i t was Kenyetta Robinson, minors") involved Randolph, King, were i n an and t h e separate complaints against t h e Board and against the claims of against Montee Board claims of negligent negligence and wantonness, and a g a i n s t t h e Board and Montee c l a i m s o f l o s s o f services a s s e r t e d by t h e p a r e n t s . 3 1100122, On claims 1100124, September 21, 2010, t h e Board asserted against i t , arguing suit pursuant 23, 1100125 moved that t o A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 2010, t h e Court denied the Board's to dismiss the i t was 1901. motions immune On to from September dismiss. The B o a r d p e t i t i o n s t h i s C o u r t f o r w r i t s o f mandamus directing the Russell 21, 2010, orders Circuit denying Court the Board's to vacate motions t h e September to dismiss and t o e n t e r orders d i s m i s s i n g the claims a g a i n s t the Board w i t h p r e j u d i c e . Standard of Review "'"'The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w under R u l e 12(b)(6)[, Ala. R. C i v . P.,] i s whether, when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most strongly i n the pleader's favor, i t appears that the p l e a d e r c o u l d prove any s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s that would entitle [ i t ] to relief. In making this determination, this Court does not consider 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 note 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 the 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 of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.'"' 4 1100122, 1100124, 1100125 "Ex p a r t e T r o y U n i v . , 961 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 , 108 ( A l a . 200 6 ) ( q u o t i n g K n o x v . W e s t e r n W o r l d I n s . C o . , 893 So. 2 d 3 2 1 , 322 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n N a n c e v . M a t t h e w s , 622 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . 'A r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s r e v i e w e d w i t h o u t a presumption of correctness.' Newman v . S a v a s , 878 So. 2 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 4 8 - 4 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . "'When a motion f o r judgment on t h e p l e a d i n g s i s made b y a p a r t y , " t h e t r i a l court reviews the pleadings f i l e d i n the case and, i f the p l e a d i n g s s h o w t h a t no genuine issue of material fact is presented, the t r i a l court w i l l enter a judgment f o r the party entitled to a judgment a c c o r d i n g to the law." B.K 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 98 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 , 7 62 S o . 2 d 840 (Ala. 2000). A j u d g m e n t 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 r e v i e w . Harden 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. 1 9 9 7 ) . 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 the p l e a d i n g s accepts t h e f a c t s s t a t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t as t r u e and v i e w s them i n t h e light most favorable t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y . I d . a t 1255-56.' "Universal Underwriters I n s . Co. v . So. 2 d 8 1 , 8 2 - 8 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . Thompson, 77 6 " ' I t 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 l i e to compel a d i s m i s s a l o f c l a i m t h a t i s b a r r e d by t h e doctrine of sovereign immunity.' Ex parte Blankenship, 893 S o . 2 d 3 0 3 , 305 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . "'A w r i t 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 that w i l l be i s s u e d only t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l in the petitioner to the 5 writ when right order 1100122, 1100124, 1100125 sought; 2) a n i m p e r a t i v e duty upon 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 so; 3) the lack of another 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 jurisdiction of the court."' J_ II I "Ex parte Wood, 852 So. 2d 705, 708 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . " ' " [ 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 case 'presents a q u e s t i o n of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction, w h i c h c a n n o t be w a i v e d o r c o n f e r r e d by consent.'" Haley v. Barbour County, 885 So. 2d 783, 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. Gladwin Corp., 835 So. 2d 137, 142-43 ( A l a . 2002)). "Therefore, a court's f a i l u r e to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction b a s e d on s o v e r e i g n immunity may p r o p e r l y b e 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 Alabama D e p ' 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 So. 2 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 0 - 1 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e 2005)." Ex p a r t e Lawley, Davis, 930 So. 2d 38 S o . 3 d 4 1 , 4 4 - 4 5 4 97 , 499-500 ( A l a . ( A l a . 2009). Discussion The B o a r d c o n t e n d s t h a t i t i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t o r t against i t a l l e g i n g negligent entrustment of loss of services because, i t says, 6 actions and a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s i t i s entitled to 1100122, 1100124, absolute i m m u n i t y a n d i t c i t e s A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 . In 1100125 Enterprise City 782 were Board of Education (Ala. 1977), t h i s Court immune from civil v. M i l l e r , 348 S o . 2 d held that c i t y boards of education actions. We stated: " C i t y boards o f e d u c a t i o n a r e a u t h o r i z e d by t h e legislature. T i t l e 5 2 , S e c t i o n 1 4 8 , e t s e q . [now § 16-11-1 e t s e q . , A l a Code 1 9 7 5 ] . "Like county school boards, they are agencies of the s t a t e , empowered t o a d m i n i s t e r p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n within the c i t i e s . As s u c h , a c i t y s c h o o l b o a r d i s not a s u b d i v i s i o n or agency of the municipal government. O p i n i o n o f t h e J u s t i c e s , 276 A l a . 2 3 9 , 160 S o . 2 d 648 (1964 ) . A city school board's r e l a t i o n to the c i t y i s analogous to a county school board's r e l a t i o n to the county. S t a t e v. Brandon, 244 A l a . 6 2 , 12 S o . 2 d 319 ( 1 9 4 3 ) . " T h e r e i s no m e n t i o n i n t h e s t a t u t e s u n d e r w h i c h c i t y s c h o o l b o a r d s a r e c r e a t e d o f t h e a b i l i t y t o be sued. Title 5 2 , s e c t i o n 168 [now § 1 6 - 1 1 - 1 3 ] , allows a c i t y school board to i n s t i t u t e condemnation proceedings. The o n l y o t h e r s t a t u t e w h i c h r e f e r s t o l i t i g a t i o n a t a l l i s T i t l e 5 2 , s e c t i o n 161 [now § 16-11-12], which p r o v i d e s : "'The c i t y board of education s h a l l have the f u l l and e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s w i t h i n t h e revenue a p p r o p r i a t e d f o r such purposes, or a c c r u i n g t o the use of the p u b l i c s c h o o l s , to purchase real estate, furniture, appropriate libraries, f u e l and s u p p l i e s f o r t h e use o f t h e s c h o o l s , and t o s e l l t h e same, a n d t o make e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r the maintenance and r e p a i r s of the school grounds, b u i l d i n g s and o t h e r p r o p e r t y , t o establish and build new schools, to superintend the erection thereof, to 7 1100122, 1100124, 1100125 p u r c h a s e s i t e s t h e r e f o r , t o make a d d i t i o n s , a l t e r a t i o n s and r e p a i r s t o t h e b u i l d i n g and other p r o p e r t y e r e c t e d f o r s c h o o l uses, and to make necessary and proper notes, contracts and agreements i n r e l a t i o n t o such matters. A l l such c o n t r a c t s shall inure to the benefit of the p u b l i c schools, and a n y s u i t i n l a w o r e q u i t y b r o u g h t upon them and f o r t h e r e c o v e r y and p r o t e c t i o n o f money a n d p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o a n d u s e d b y the p u b l i c s c h o o l s , o r f o r damages, s h a l l be b r o u g h t b y a n d i n t h e name o f t h e c i t y . ' "It i s clear, therefore, that there i s no express language i n the l e g i s l a t i o n which would allow a tort action against a c i t y school board. Neither i s there language from which legislative i n t e n t t o a l l o w s u c h a c t i o n s may b e i n f e r r e d . To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e l e g i s l a t i o n seems c l e a r l y t o d e n y such s u i t s . " 348 So. 2d a t 783-84. C i t y boards of education therefore, they enjoy of services. Bessemer Bd. o f Educ. C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ( n o t i n g are agencies the extent as an example, authorized that, immunity from Enterprise City v. Tucker, Bd. of Educ., they enjoy immunity from by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and f u r t h e r because they city may 8 supra; 999 S o . 2 d 9 5 7 , 962 t h a t , because c i t y boards of to contract, tort e n t r u s t m e n t and a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s o f of the State, authorized agencies of the State; constitutional actions alleging negligent loss are local boards education suit sued to noting, of education sue a n d be (Ala. on are those 1100122, 1100124, contracts). 1100125 Accordingly, negligent entrustment of the parents the claims against the Board of a n d a s s e r t i n g l o s s o f s e r v i c e s on b e h a l f are barred b y A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 . Conclusion Because 14, the Board A l a . Const. has demonstrated 1901, i t has a b s o l u t e the n e g l i g e n t - e n t r u s t m e n t against have i t , the Board the Therefore, directing denying claims we dismissing with immunity has e s t a b l i s h e d a c l e a r i t dismissed the Board's the R u s s e l l the Board's under A r t . I , § from and l o s s - o f - s e r v i c e s c l a i m s against grant that Circuit Court motions prejudice petitions to with and asserted on asserted right to prejudice. and i s s u e to vacate dismiss the claims legal suit writs i t s orders enter orders against the Board. PETITIONS Cobb, GRANTED; WRITS C . J . , and Lyons, ISSUED. Bolin, 9 and Murdock, J J . , concur.

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.