Johnnie Mae Sawyer, as daughter and administrator of the estate of Arthur Waters, deceased v. Sylvia Collins et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/24/2013 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120301 Johnnie Mae Sawyer, as daughter and a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the e s t a t e o f A r t h u r Waters, deceased v. Sylvia Collins et a l . C e r t i f i e d Question from the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r the Southern D i s t r i c t o f Alabama, Northern D i v i s i o n (No. WISE, Justice. This Court i n i t i a l l y it 2:12-0020) by t h e U n i t e d States accepted District the question Court certified to f o r t h e Southern 1120301 District o f A l a b a m a ; h o w e v e r , we now d e c l i n e t o answer t h e question. QUESTION DECLINED. Moore, C . J . , and Stuart, Parker, Bryan, J J . , concur. B o l i n a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 2 Murdock, Main, and 1120301 SHAW, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . As d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the Southern District district court"), pursuant to Court's The Rule of has 18, Alabama, certified Ala. R. Northern Division this a to App. P. I dissent d e c i s i o n t o d e c l i n e t o answer the district court explained follows in i t s c e r t i f i c a t i o n the to t h i s Court question from this question. f a c t s of this case Court: " P l a i n t i f f J o h n n i e Mae Sawyer i s t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the E s t a t e of A r t h u r Waters, a d e c e a s e d A l a b a m a p r i s o n e r . D e f e n d a n t James Hood was the P e r r y County S h e r i f f d u r i n g the time of W a t e r s ' i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; D e f e n d a n t s S y l v i a C o l l i n s and Bobby S a n d e r s were j a i l e r s a t t h e P e r r y C o u n t y J a i l d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . W a t e r s was c o n v i c t e d o f a s s a u l t and s u r r e n d e r e d a t 2:00 p.m. on June 20, 2011, t o t h e P e r r y C o u n t y J a i l . C o l l i n s and S a n d e r s were on d u t y . A t s u r r e n d e r , W a t e r s c o m p l a i n e d t h a t he d i d n o t f e e l w e l l . He was p l a c e d i n i s o l a t i o n u n t i l t h e n e x t day. A t t h i s p o i n t , he t o l d t h e j a i l e r s t h a t he felt w o r s e and was i n p a i n . He a l s o c o m p l a i n e d t h a t he was nauseated, needed t o vomit, had d i a r r h e a , a f e v e r , and was h a v i n g t r o u b l e b r e a t h i n g . W a t e r s was g i v e n a mat so he c o u l d l i e on t h e f l o o r i n t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n c e l l . He s o i l e d h i m s e l f and t h e mat w i t h v o m i t and f e c e s . D u r i n g t h i s t i m e , he a s k e d f o r m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n f r o m t h e j a i l e r s C o l l i n s and Sanders. Other inmates a l s o informed C o l l i n s and Sanders about Waters' pain and symptoms and r e q u e s t e d m e d i c a l c a r e f o r him. He was g i v e n one dose of I b u p r o f e n . C o l l i n s and Sanders d i d not c o n t a c t S h e r i f f Hood r e g a r d i n g W a t e r s ' c o n d i t i o n . C o l l i n s ' and S a n d e r s ' s h i f t e n d e d a t 4:00 p.m. 3 ("the as 1120301 "The j a i l e r s on t h e n e x t s h i f t g a v e W a t e r s a [ p a i n r e l i e v e r and a s o f t d r i n k ] and c a l l e d S h e r i f f Hood. Hood i n s t r u c t e d t h e j a i l e r s t o have W a t e r s c o m p l e t e a m e d i c a l f o r m t o see a d o c t o r t h e n e x t day. The j a i l e r t o l d t h e S h e r i f f t h a t W a t e r s was n o t c a p a b l e o f c o m p l e t i n g t h e f o r m , b u t Hood r e i t e r a t e d h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s . The j a i l e r s c a l l e d Hood t w i c e more d u r i n g the next t h r e e hours t o ask f o r m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n [ f o r W a t e r s ] , b u t he d e n i e d t h e i r r e q u e s t . A t a b o u t 8:00 p.m., a j a i l e r gave Waters [ a n o v e r t h e - c o u n t e r g a s t r o - i n t e s t i n a l m e d i c a t i o n ] and c a l l e d S h e r i f f Hood f o r t h e f o u r t h t i m e . Hood d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t t o p r o v i d e Waters w i t h a d d i t i o n a l m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . A t a b o u t t h e same t i m e , o t h e r i n m a t e s had l i f t e d W a t e r s o n t o a t o i l e t . W a t e r s b e g a n t o shake and t h e n d i e d . The c a u s e o f d e a t h was p n e u m o n i a compounded by t u b e r c u l o s i s . (Doc. 37, Doc. 61) "On J a n u a r y 20, 2012, P l a i n t i f f Johnnie Mae Sawyer filed suit asserting that a l l of the Defendants, through d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e , f a i l e d to p r o v i d e m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t as r e q u i r e d i n t h e E i g h t h Amendment. P l a i n t i f f has a l s o a s s e r t e d a c l a i m o f A l a b a m a common l a w n e g l i g e n c e a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t s C o l l i n s and S a n d e r s . As t o t h e s t a t e l a w c l a i m , C o l l i n s and S a n d e r s a s s e r t i m m u n i t y p u r s u a n t to A l a b a m a Code § 1 4 - 6 - 1 . " A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 14-6-1, p r o v i d e s : "The s h e r i f f has t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y and c h a r g e o f t h e j a i l i n h i s o r h e r c o u n t y and a l l p r i s o n e r s committed thereto, except in cases otherwise p r o v i d e d by l a w . The s h e r i f f may e m p l o y p e r s o n s t o c a r r y o u t h i s o r h e r d u t y t o o p e r a t e t h e j a i l and s u p e r v i s e t h e i n m a t e s h o u s e d t h e r e i n f o r whose a c t s he o r she i s c i v i l l y responsible. Persons so e m p l o y e d by t h e s h e r i f f s h a l l be a c t i n g f o r and u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e s h e r i f f and s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o t h e same i m m u n i t i e s and l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n s g r a n t e d t o the s h e r i f f under the g e n e r a l l a w s and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o f 4 1120301 1901, as l o n g as s u c h p e r s o n s a r e a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and scope o f t h e i r d u t i e s and a r e a c t i n g i n compliance with the law." (Emphasis added.) The issue presented to the d i s t r i c t court i s whether S y l v i a C o l l i n s a n d Bobby S a n d e r s ("the j a i l e r - d e f e n d a n t s " ) a r e immune f r o m J o h n n i e Mae S a w y e r ' s s t a t e - l a w Code s e c t i o n . Specifically, jailer-defendants The district the p a r t i e s dispute court their dramatically law." "the under noted that the phrase briefs to this different The p l a i n t i f f , Court, this whether the were " a c t i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h b e e n d e f i n e d b y an A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e In claims the law." "the law" had n o t court. the p a r t i e s interpretations o f f e r two of the phrase "the Sawyer, seems t o t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t l a w " i n c l u d e s a l l s t a t u t e s , b o t h c r i m i n a l and c i v i l , and constitutional provisions United States adopted by narrower Apparently Constitution) Sheriff view in ( s u c h as t h e E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e that Hood. a n d any p o l i c i e s The "the law" response to or procedures jailer-defendants refers these to take the criminal dramatically laws. differing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 18, A l a . R. App. P., c e r t i f i e d t o t h i s Court the f o l l o w i n g 5 question: 1120301 "Alabama Code § 14-6-1 p r o v i d e s t h a t p e r s o n s , s u c h as j a i l e m p l o y e e s , who a c t o r u n d e r t a k e d u t i e s a t t h e d i r e c t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e s h e r i f f a r e immune f r o m s t a t e law c l a i m s t o t h e same e x t e n t as a S h e r i f f , 'as l o n g as he o r she i s a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h i s o r h e r d u t i e s and i s a c t i n g i n compliance w i t h the law.' The first r e q u i r e m e n t -- a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f t h e i r d u t i e s -i s the same r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a s h e r i f f to r e c e i v e immunity. However, t h e r e i s no requirement that a s h e r i f f act ' i n compliance with the l a w ' i n order to r e c e i v e immunity. How should t h i s c o u r t i n t e r p r e t ' a c t i n g i n compliance w i t h the l a w ' i n order t o not render the g r a n t of immunity meaningless or the phrase superfluous? Specifically, what ' l a w ' i s e n c o m p a s s e d by the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a j a i l employee a c t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the law?" Rule 18(a), A l a . R. App. P., states: "When i t s h a l l a p p e a r t o a c o u r t o f t h e United S t a t e s t h a t t h e r e a r e i n v o l v e d i n any p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e i t q u e s t i o n s o r p r o p o s i t i o n s o f law o f t h i s S t a t e w h i c h a r e d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f s a i d c a u s e and t h a t t h e r e a r e no c l e a r c o n t r o l l i n g p r e c e d e n t s i n t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h i s S t a t e , s u c h federal court may certify such questions or p r o p o s i t i o n s o f law o f t h i s S t a t e t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of Alabama f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g such questions or propositions of state law, which c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h i s S t a t e , by w r i t t e n o p i n i o n , may a n s w e r . " I b e l i e v e t h a t the q u e s t i o n c e r t i f i e d i s c l e a r , t h a t no f a c t s are n e c e s s a r y f o r t h i s C o u r t t o answer the q u e s t i o n , t h a t our a n s w e r w o u l d be determinative 6 of t h i s case. other and 1120301 I t seems a x i o m a t i c statutes, as w e l l as t h a t b o t h c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l precepts, f o r purposes of § 14-6-1. are I t i s apparent that civil "the the law" district c o u r t s e e k s t o know w h e t h e r , as Sawyer s u g g e s t s , p o l i c i e s procedures for handling are, s i c k i n m a t e s p r o p o u n d e d by f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 14-6-1, " l a w " t h a t must be The by supervision of not been d e c i d e d answer t o t h a t q u e r y has an A l a b a m a c o u r t , and s h o u l d be the by procedures i t i s c l e a r l y an i s s u e an A l a b a m a f i r s t to decide. C o u r t does n o t need t o w h e t h e r any f o r c e o f law content issued. 83 So. a question was not, cause." proper c e r t i f i e d by required valuation a the policies or principles for the v. Shelby Realty Holdings, ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , t h i s C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o answer a f e d e r a l c o u r t because the by Specifically, regarding And any this or l e g a l e f f e c t are s e t t l e d . 3d 469 as of s u c h p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s have I n S t e w a r t T i t l e G u a r a n t y Co. LLC, court To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , know t h e S h e r i f f Hood has determining sheriff followed j a i l e r s a c t i n g f o r and u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n and the s h e r i f f . a and we method certain Rule to were be insurance 7 18, "determinative c a l l e d upon used in claim. to question of decide said the c a l c u l a t i n g damages The question was 1120301 presented in terms of this v a l u a t i o n methods d i s c u s s e d We declined the insurance question own to adopting one of cases i n other question states. because the n o t a d d r e s s e d by t h e two text i n our to The c e r t i f y i n g c o u r t , we d e c i d e d , that method answer t o the possible that instead certified of any question. answering the question of certified the p a r t i e s , appeared p o s s i b l y to p r o v i d e resort w o r d s , i t was other answer t h e v a l u a t i o n method. provided by p o l i c y , w h i c h was o r by ultimately Court's its might method In other as posed w o u l d r e s u l t i n t h i s C o u r t ' s s e l e c t i n g a v a l u a t i o n method f o r use i n Alabama t h a t m i g h t , under the s u p e r s e d e d by certifying must be the court. insurance Citing determinative p o l i c y and the of the f a c t s of t h a t not proposition c a u s e , we case, utilized that the by the question held: " F u r t h e r m o r e , and p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t l y , b e c a u s e the district court might determine that the v a l u a t i o n i s s u e can be p r o p e r l y and f a i r l y r e s o l v e d by l o o k i n g t o t h e s p e c i f i c l a n g u a g e o f t h e p o l i c y , answering the c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n would n e c e s s i t a t e our f a s h i o n i n g a b r o a d r u l e w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i t w o u l d have no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s p r e s e n t e d . T h a t p o s s i b i l i t y a l s o r e n d e r s us u n a b l e t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n . See P a l m o r e v. F i r s t Unum, 841 So. 2d 233, 235 ( A l a . 2002) ('In o r d e r f o r t h i s Court to c o n s i d e r a c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n from a f e d e r a l c o u r t , t h e q u e s t i o n must be, among o t h e r t h i n g s , " d e t e r m i n a t i v e of [the u n d e r l y i n g ] cause."' ( q u o t i n g R u l e 1 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P.))." 8 be 1120301 I do not see that this rationale the q u e s t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e for declining to i n t h i s c a s e : i f t h i s C o u r t were t o answer the q u e s t i o n , the d i s t r i c t c o u r t would a p p l y the to the q u e s t i o n , which c o u l d determine the We also declined t o answer t h e issue we did federal court, not need to answer before i t . question i n Stewart because, i f the i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y p r o v i d e d the p r o p e r method, answer interpret the Title valuation policy for the because "[c]onstruing an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t r e a d s no new ground under Alabama law, and precedent d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f s u c h an a n a l y s i s i s w e l l s e t t l e d . P u b l i c B l d g . A u t h . o f H u n t s v i l l e v. S t . P a u l F i r e & sville Fire M a r i n e I n s . Co., 800 So. 3d 171, 180 (Ala. 201( 2010) ('[T]he i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of contract a does not p r e s e n t a n o v e l l e g a l i s s u e . R a t h e r , the r u l e s of contract construction and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e well e s t a b l i s h e d i n Alabama ')." If an interpretation question in proposition required Stewart of was the law" of the Title, that policy then was application o f our t e x t of i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s . the instant the term defined. m a t t e r b e f o r e us, as We not are it is there unclear; the "law" w o u l d have a n s w e r e d was c l e a r law § a l l that was on interpreting situation in law 14-6-1 c a l l e d upon t o a p p l y law 9 or the That i s not in "question instead, because the used no the i s not has yet clear: to be t o f a c t s , as we 1120301 were i n S t e w a r t T i t l e . the law. I n s t e a d , we a r e c a l l e d upon t o e x p l a i n I w o u l d answer t h e q u e s t i o n 10 certified.

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.