In re: S.K.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Montgomery County Board of Education (the Board), several of its members, and a teacher in the school system petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacated its order that denied their motion for summary judgment. Third-grade student "S.K." went to the restroom with two friends. Her teacher did not accompany them. S.K. claims that when she attempted to leave the restroom stall, the door jammed. She tried to climb over the door to get out of the stall but slipped and fell, cutting her face on a metal hanger on the back of the door. S.K. (by and through her mother Tetrina Capehart) sued the Board, its members individually and in their official capacities, and the teacher asserting negligence and wantonness claims, and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The Board and teacher argued that there were no genuine issues of fact, and that S.K. was contributorily negligent from "playing" in the restroom. The circuit court denied the Board's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Board demonstrated that under the state constitution, it had absolute immunity from suit for claims asserted against it. The Court granted the Board's petition and issued the writ to direct the circuit court to rule in the Board's favor.
Download PDF
Rel: 01/27/12 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 Courts, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1101401 Ex p a r t e Montgomery County B o a r d of Education e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : S.K., a m i n o r , by and t h r o u g h h e r mother, Tertrina Capehart v. Montgomery County B o a r d (Montgomery C i r c u i t MAIN, Court, CV-09-648) Justice. The M o n t g o m e r y its of Education e t a l . ) members County Charlotte Board Meadows, of Education Eleanor Lewis ("the Board"); Dawkins, Mary 1101401 Briers, M e l i s s a B. S n o w d e n , R o b e r t P o r t e r f i e l d , and Heather "the Sellers Board (hereinafter members"); and Elaine Montgomery County S c h o o l System for a writ to vacate judgment order i t s to order the S.K.'s granting petition and I. Factual third-grade Montgomery to County, the to stall fell, of cutting her door. On the mother, Tertrina for a g a i n s t them by Capehart, and a summary S.K. and to motion. by and enter We an grant the Procedural History c o m p l a i n t , on at Peter into April Crump the 26, 2007, Elementary restroom with S.K., School two attempted She to leave the to get out of the s t a l l f a c e on April a metal 24, Capehart, restroom f u r t h e r c l a i m e d t h a t she 2009, sued 2 S.K., by the Board, and in S.K. stall, attempted but s l i p p e d hook or hanger a friends; t e a c h e r , d i d not accompany them. d o o r jammed. c l i m b over the door the writ. went when s h e motion summary-judgment Guice, her t h i r d - g r a d e that in Court their Background student a teacher the Montgomery C i r c u i t Tertrina the the Guice, as Court claims f i l e d their to c o l l e c t i v e l y ("Guice"), p e t i t i o n t h i s denying mother, issue According claimed L. o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g as through referred B e v e r l y Ross, on the through the Board and back her members 1101401 in their o f f i c i a l in her o f f i c i a l wantonness The for a suit and s e e k i n g summary members, They of m a t e r i a l the doctrine of State contributorily result compensatory judgment. and t h e Board doctrine asserting the Board issues under Board capacity, Board, genuine c a p a c i t i e s , and G u i c e , b o t h i n d i v i d u a l l y and members negligent, of her " p l a y i n g " that Guice They a l s o that had f a i l e d remedies available to her. t h a t S.K. was her i n j u r i e s were t h e A d d i t i o n a l l y , they a l l administrative 15, 2011, t h e Montgomery motion. The B o a r d , t h e B o a r d m e m b e r s , a n d G u i c e p e t i t i o n denying the summary-judgment f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e M o n t g o m e r y to vacate summary j u d g m e n t the July in their II. 15, 2011, order and to favor. Standard of Review "'"While the general r u l e i s that 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 exception i s that 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 3 from the Court Court order no under Circuit Court an were and t h a t t h e suit asserted to exhaust On J u l y motion i s immune from i n the restroom. that a there immunity and damages. filed that a r e immune arguing asserted issued and Guice asserted fact, of negligence and p u n i t i v e of State-agent immunity. S.K. claims this Circuit enter a 1101401 immunity 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. E x p a r t e P u r v i s , 689 S o . 2 d 794 (Ala. 1996).... "'"Summary judgment i s 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 a s 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 judgment as a m a t t e r o f law.' R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., Y o u n g v . L a Q u i n t a I n n s , I n c . , 682 S o . 2 d 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 t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y , Hurst v. Alabama Power Co., 675 S o . 2 d 397 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , F u q u a v . Ingersoll-Rand C o . , 591 S o . 2 d 486 ( A l a . 1991) ; w i l l a c c o r d t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y a l l reasonable favorable inferences from the e v i d e n c e , Fuqua, supra, 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 . 1992) ; a n d w i l l resolve a l l reasonable doubts against the moving p a r t y , Hurst, supra, 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 summary 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 s t a n d a r d s 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 f o r i t s consideration in 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 R u c k e r 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 4 1101401 remedy available only when the p e t i t i o n e r can demonstrate: '"(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e o r d e r 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) 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) 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 .2003) ( q u o t i n g E x 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 p a r t e Yancey, 8 So. 3d 2 9 9 , 303-04 III. A. C l a i m s The judgment Art. Board contends because, Analysis against that i t says, I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . the Board this Court absolute when willfully, alleges in the she has that immunity the tort immunity, of the we i t asserted a summary pursuant claims and beyond their their authority, argument hold alleged immunity" have i s not acted She t h e n of evidence that a l l acted w i l l f u l l y , the Board taken. i s i n i t s summary-judgment 5 conceded authority. i s not w e l l that to i n her b r i e f to defendants "provided plenty S.K.'s follow, immunity, "the Defendants' more a c t e d beyond bad f a i t h . " reasons or to A l t h o u g h S.K. i n i t i a l l y to State that i n bad f a i t h , that Defendants one i t i s entitled 1901, from i s entitled she argues the Board i t enjoys against i ti n the complaint. that ( A l a . 2008). and For the entitled motion. to 1101401 Section 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, p r o v i d e s " [ t ] h a t o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r b e made a d e f e n d a n t or equity." school boards governmental I t i s well are agencies units they same a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y parte In 2010), this Court i n Alabama s e r v e , and they as o t h e r a g e n c i e s County i n any c o u r t o f law of the State, Bessemer Bd. o f Educ., Ex p a r t e Monroe (Ala. settled the State that "[l]ocal not of the l o c a l are entitled to the of the State." Ex 68 S o . 3 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 9 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 48 S o . 3 d 621 held: "'"Section 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, p r o v i d e s ' [ t ] h a t t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r b e made a defendant i n any c o u r t o f law o r equity.' This section affords the State and i t s agencies an 'absolute' immunity from s u i t i n any c o u r t . Ex p a r t e M o b i l e C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 815 S o . 2 d 527, 530 ( A l a . 2001) (stating that A l a . Const. 1 9 0 1 , § 14, c o n f e r s on t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and i t s agencies absolute immunity from s u i t i n any c o u r t ) ; Ex p a r t e T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 7 9 6 So. 2 d 1100 , 1 1 0 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ('Under A l a . C o n s t . o f 1 9 0 1 , § 14, the State o f Alabama has a b s o l u t e immunity from l a w s u i t s . This a b s o l u t e immunity extends t o arms o r a g e n c i e s o f t h e s t a t e ....'). Indeed, this Court has described § 14 a s a n 'almost invincible' 'wall' of immunity. 6 1101401 A l a b a m a S t a t e D o c k s v . S a x o n , 631 So. 2 d 9 4 3 , 946 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . T h i s 'wall of immunity' i s 'nearly impregnable,' Patterson v. G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 , 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d b a r s ' a l m o s t every conceivable type of s u i t . ' H u t c h i n s o n v. Board of T r u s t e e s o f U n i v . o f A l a . , 288 A l a . 2 0 , 23, 256 So. 2d 2 8 1 , 283 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Moreover, i f an a c t i o n i s an action against the State within the m e a n i n g o f § 14, s u c h a c a s e 'presents a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived or c o n f e r r e d by c o n s e n t . ' P a t t e r s o n , 835 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 2 - 4 3 . " " ' H a l e y 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 . 2004) (emphasis added). For p u r p o s e s o f § 14 i m m u n i t y , c o u n t y b o a r d s o f education are considered agencies of the S t a t e . L o u v i e r e v. M o b i l e County Bd. o f Educ., 670 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 877 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ("County b o a r d s of education, as local agencies of the State, enjoy [§ 14] i m m u n i t y . " ) . Thus, t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t c o u n t y b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n a r e immune f r o m t o r t a c t i o n s . See Brown v . C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y B d . o f E d u c . , 524 S o . 2 d 6 2 3 , 625 ( A l a . 1988); H u t t v. Etowah County Bd. o f Educ., 454 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 974 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n [1099,] a t 1102-03 County Bd. o f Educ., [(Ala. 2008)]. 4 So. 3d " I n E x p a r t e H a l e C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 14 So. 3 d 844 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e v i s i t e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r c o u n t y b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n w e r e immune f r o m s u i t , o v e r r u l i n g Sims v. Etowah C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 337 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 0 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) , a n d K i m m o n s 7 1101401 v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 204 A l a . 384, 85 S o . 774 ( 1 9 2 0 ) , a n d s t a t i n g t h a t 'because county boards of education are l o c a l agencies of the State, they are c l o t h e d i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l immunity from s u i t ' and t h a t t h e immunity a c c o r d e d a c o u n t y board of education i s absolute." 48 So. 3d a t 6 2 4 - 2 5 . judgment the based Board against Therefore, o n § 14 i m m u n i t y The against 789 Board i n their ("'Not o n l y his State 2008))); 2010) as t o on t h e t o r t claims v. and Guice official See B e s s e m e r The capacity."'" Int'l, and Ex p a r t e her o f f i c i a l of immunity). "This 68 S o . 3 d a t an o f f i c e r i n 831 , Dep't of 839 ( A l a . a State o f f i c i a l damages a r e b a r r e d Court has h e l d 8 and 49 S o . 3 d 6 7 5 , 681 ( A l a . against seeking against members Alabama So. 2d they u n d e r § 14, b u t by s u i n g (quoting I n c . , 990 Dangerfield, capacity Board Bd. o f Educ., c a n n o t be s u e d i n d i r e c t l y that asserted immune f r o m s u i t (holding that a l l claims doctrine l i k e w i s e contend capacities. i s the State Harbert i n their capacities t o § 14 f o r t h e c l a i m s or her o f f i c i a l Transp. or members are correct. "[t]he entered t h e B o a r d members a n d G u i c e immunity under Guice summary the Board. official them for a was d u e t o b e g r a n t e d a n d a summary j u d g m e n t B. C l a i m s enjoy the motion that in his by t h e the immunity 1101401 a f f o r d e d t h e S t a t e b y § 14 a p p l i e s t o i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o f t h e State and when such State. (Ala. State 2003)." Sept. 30 , in their effectively (Ala. State Therefore, Ex because Guice i n t h e i r C. of the official action Educ. the So. 2 d 2 5 7 , 261 Servs., Inc., officials 835 So. Dangerfield, against 49 the be Burgoon 2d cannot v. 131, So. 3d Board Guice as a 14, Guice that argues teacher 681. c a p a c i t i e s a r e b a r r e d by A r t . I , § due i n her she is t o be as t o them granted. individual entitled that the claims a r i s i n g from her performance of o f f i c i a l discretion at and capacity to State-agent immunity f o r the claims a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t her i n her capacity. 132-33 members c a p a c i t i e s was contends [Ms. ( A l a . 2011). capacities. Res., claims against , State official capacities t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t Claims against Guice an 3d that Human parte official C o n s t . 1901, their cavil in their Dep't 2002 ) . " So. official I n c . , 858 v. Aramark 2011] beyond f o r damages Alabama in is Vandenberg is settled sued Ala. action sued Lyons v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r . , 1100557 , "It an officers f o r the Education. 9 are individual based on acts d u t i e s and e x e r c i s i n g Montgomery County Board of 1101401 "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 , but not l i m i t e d t o , examples such as: "(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 or agency by s t a t u t e , as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g performs the duties i 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 rule, or regulation, insofar or r e g u l a t i o n prescribes the t h e d u t i e s and t h e S t a t e agent n t h a t manner; o r "(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 "(5) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n the discharge 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 releasing 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 10 1101401 " ( 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 r e g u l a t i o n s of t h i s State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of regulating 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 her a u t h o r i t y , or 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 the law." Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392, 405 (Ala. 2000). 1 " T h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d a ' b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g ' process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. G i a m b r o n e v . D o u g l a s , 874 So. 2d 1046, 1052 ( A l a . 2003) . In order to claim S t a t e - a g e n t immunity, a State agent bears the burden of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s 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 to immunity. Giambrone, 874 So. 2 d a t 1052 ; E x p a r t e Wood, 852 So. 2 d 7 0 5 , 709 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . I f the S t a t e 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 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 S t a t e a g e n t a c t e d 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 or her a u t h o r i t y . Giambrone, 874 So. 2 d a t 1052 ; Wood, 852 So. 2 d a t 7 0 9 ; Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 721 So. 2 d 6 8 5 , 689 ( A l a . 1998). 'A S t a t e agent a c t s beyond a u t h o r i t y and i s t h e r e f o r e n o t immune when he o r s h e " f a i l [ s ] to discharge d u t i e s pursuant to d e t a i l e d r u l e s or r e g u l a t i o n s , s u c h 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 ) ) . " 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 o p i n i o n , t h e t e s t s e t f o r t h i n 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 a m a j o r i t y o f t h e C o u r t i n 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 ) . 1 11 1101401 Ex p a r t e E s t a t e of Reynolds, Additionally, as this Court 946 So. 2d recently 450, 452 (Ala. 2006). stated: "'State-agent immunity p r o t e c t s agents of the S t a t e in their exercise of discretion in educating students. We will not second-guess their decisions.' Ex p a r t e B l a n k e n s h i p , 806 So. 2 d 1186, 1190 ( A l a . 2000). However, '[o]nce i t i s d e t e r m i n e d that State-agent immunity applies, State-agent i m m u n i t y i s w i t h h e l d upon a s h o w i n g t h a t the S t a t e 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 faith, or beyond h i s or her authority. [Ex p a r t e ] C r a n m a n , 792 So. 2d [ 3 9 2 , ] a t 405 [(Ala. 2000)].' E x p a r t e B i t e l , 45 So. 3d 1 2 5 2 , 1257-58 (Ala. 2010)." N.C. v. Caldwell, , (Ala. S.K. [Ms. 1081434, April 22, to analogize the facts C a l d w e l l a n d Ex p a r t e M o n r o e C o u n t y B o a r d was raped class had in this by a ended. So. 3d such as 2011). attempts to the f a c t s 2011] case. student The in of E d u c a t i o n , I n C a l d w e l l , N.C. in trial the boys' cases alleged that locker court entered supra, room she after a summary gym judgment i n f a v o r o f C a l d w e l l , t h e p h y s i c a l - e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r , and appealed. This Court determined that a genuine m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d as t o w h e t h e r C a l d w e l l had student and, In who allegedly raped i f s o , w h e t h e r he h a d making that N.C. to serve as exceeded h i s a u t h o r i t y determination, 12 this Court issue appointed a student i n doing looked N.C. to of the aide so. the 1101401 affidavits and other judgment stage. evidence indicating as a s t u d e n t and In aide so not class,'" policy So. because the student the gym had aide who I n Ex in the record she this was incident t h a t A.H. a class , and So. not i n s t r u c t e d students, scheduled 3d on the f o r the acted at . that that the "'[a]ny attend t h a t C a l d w e l l was a l l e g e d l y committed had indicating should several that aware of occasion rape, the even to leave c l a s s then being there. parte negligence, spanking presented A.H. provided Monroe County B o a r d of E d u c a t i o n , of t h i s Court determined t h a t the t e a c h e r , of the Caldwell, expressly for when t h e y w e r e n o t conducted "N.C. appointed that before them." 3d a t he summary- class handbook scheduled the serve evidence student that complained to C a l d w e l l There faculty noted at fifth-period physical-education toward school's we had record to indicating had also the that Caldwell inappropriately was in doing, i n the also evidence female students evidence wantonness, i n c i d e n t had entitled and been a s s e r t e d , to State-agent Court granted the assault had majority a g a i n s t whom arising not claims out established immunity; t h e r e f o r e , b o a r d ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n 13 a and of a that although directed 1101401 the trial denied the c o u r t t o e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t f o r t h e b o a r d , t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n majority relied that the teacher had without student though on any as fact the to the teacher. that the other had punishment, which whenever administered. was not written being included a provision exceeded a employee's board present the The entitled of her to a policy corporal majority scope evidence to present, even corporal that another concluded employee that was the being teacher had and that, therefore, judgment summary the governing punishment authority doing, indicated a d m i n i s t e r e d c o r p o r a l punishment the be I n so i t based on she State-agent immunity. The a type student of a l l e g a t i o n s by another designated as a complaints from behavior that policy punishment whom student aide students them) and in Caldwell and Ex Caldwell (the rape had ignoring about student parte the Monroe of the teacher, the school board without another who had by County other aide's Board of conclusively violated a specific administering corporal employee's 14 of allegedly Caldwell's ( e v i d e n c e at the summary-judgment s t a g e established written student female toward Education present being present, had 1101401 exceeded t h e scope State-agent Certainly, to of her a u t h o r i t y immunity) are i n the absence the contrary, not a n d was n o t e n t i t l e d present in this to case. o f any r u l e well i t was or p o l i c y of the Board Guice's within discretion to d e t e r m i n e when a n d how t o p e r m i t s t u d e n t s i n h e r c l a s s t o t a k e restroom breaks submitted by t h e p a r t i e s requiring a teacher The evidence this action during indicated show t h a t Guice do n o t i n d i c a t e that that exceeded disorder materials to the restroom. the incident stated that suffered and s h o u l d the burden that a showing by p o i n t i n g S.K. The any p o l i c y o r r u l e students before Thus, into the restroom without Capehart day. underlying S.K. h a d r o u t i n e l y g o n e t o t h e r e s t r o o m w i t h o u t a supervision. such school t o accompany teacher's go the discretion i n allowing an a d u l t . S.K. a t t e m p t s to Capehart's she had w r i t t e n from s h i f t e d t o S.K. t o deposition Guice S.K. t o t o make i n which and i n f o r m e d h e r attention deficit/hyperactivity n o t be a l l o w e d t o wander around t h e s c h o o l unattended. Even assuming t h a t Capehart d i d , i n f a c t , that information the general level whether of creating Guice to Guice, a genuine exceeded her 15 i t simply issue provide does n o t r i s e t o of material discretionary fact as t o authority in 1101401 permitting S.K. her. was n o t a s s i g n e d S.K. program or designated monitoring, be by treated differently entitled her capacity the school program at individual as to the capacity, the claims was d u e t o b e Because the Board 14, A l a . Const. the claims of special-education as asserted i t . any o t h e r needing student school. and her motion against her i n the general against against her for a i n her summary individual that under immunity i t , the Board Art. from the Board members t h a t under A r t . are e n t i t l e d t o t h e same i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t have e s t a b l i s h e d a c l e a r and I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . legal right suit on asserted Guice have 1901, they as t h e B o a r d , they t o a s u m m a r y j u d g e m e n t on the c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l has d e m o n s t r a t e d 16 I, § has e s t a b l i s h e d a t o a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h e c l a i m s Guice i s Conclusion has d e m o n s t r a t e d Because because Guice granted. demonstrated Finally, additional Therefore, 1901, i t has a b s o l u t e legal right against accompanying i m m u n i t y as t o t h e c l a i m s IV. clear without t o any s o r t than to State-agent judgment the restroom n o r was C a p e h a r t a d v i s e d t h a t S.K. w o u l d , i n f a c t , educational in t o go i n t o that capacities. she i s e n t i t l e d 1101401 to State-agent immunity i n her individual right to grant capacity, the p e t i t i o n Circuit a summary Court as t o t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t h e r she judgment on and to vacate i t s July summary-judgment judgment a l l the Board members, and claims Murdock, C.J., Shaw, a n d those claims. directing 15, motion 2011, and a clear legal Therefore, the Montgomery order denying to asserted against enter the we a the summary Board, the Guice. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Malone, established a writ issue defendants' on has and Wise, ISSUED. Woodall, Stuart, J J . , concur. 17 Bolin, Parker,
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.
