99 So. 3d 282
Ala.2012Background
- The City of Montgomery and five police officers petition for a writ of mandamus directing a trial court to grant summary judgment in their favor on claims by Berry, Williams, and Johnson.
- Berry, a paraplegic, was restrained and removed from a vehicle during a drug-search incident at a checkpoint; he alleges willful or deliberate injury by Officer Oglesby.
- Williams, an elderly disabled individual, was forced to the ground during a saturation detail stop; she alleges kicks and prolonged grounding with ant bites.
- Johnson, a large-disabled man, alleges theft of money and negligent safeguarding by Officer Commander, and alleges harmful arrest conduct by Officers McMahon and Caffey.
- Procedurally, the trial court denied the summary-judgment motion; the City and officers sought mandamus review of immunity-based denial.
- The court holds some officers are entitled to state-agent immunity under § 6-5-338(a) as modified by Cranman and Hollis, while others are not; the City’s negligent-hiring/training/supervision claims survive in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oglesby is entitled to State-agent immunity | Berry argues Oglesby acted beyond authority or with bad faith. | Oglesby acted within law-enforcement duties and obligations. | Oglesby entitled to immunity; summary judgment granted. |
| Whether Stewart is entitled to State-agent immunity | Williams shows willful or malicious conduct by Stewart. | Stewart performed duties within immunity framework. | Stewart not entitled to immunity; no summary judgment on Williams's claims. |
| Whether Commander is entitled to State-agent immunity for Johnson's negligence claim | Johnson's theft claim remains; immunity not clearly applicable to negligence. | Immunity applies if claim arises from law-enforcement duties. | Negligence claim denied for immunity; theft claim unresolved; petition denied as to negligence. |
| Whether McMahon and Caffey are entitled to State-agent immunity | Johnson alleges improper handling; immunity should apply unless willful/bad faith proven. | McMahon and Caffey acted within enforcement duties and immunity framework. | McMahon entitled to immunity; Caffey not entitled to immunity. |
| Whether the City is immune for vicarious liability and negligent-hiring/training/supervision claims | City should be liable for officers' acts or negligent oversight. | If officers are immune, the City is immune for vicarious claims; negligent-hiring/training/supervision denied partial immunity. | City granted immunity for vicarious claims based on Oglesby and McMahon; denied for Stewart, Commander, Caffey; negligent-hiring/training/supervision claims survive in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (establishes Cranman test for State-agent immunity)
- Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So.2d 300 (Ala. 2006) (expands Cranman category (4) immunity scope for enforcement actions)
- Ex parte Kennedy, 992 So.2d 1276 (Ala. 2008) (manual not binding; cannot prove beyond-checklist duties)
- Ex parte Turner, 840 So.2d 132 (Ala. 2002) (sets framework for appellate review of immunity denials)
- Ex parte Nall, 879 So.2d 541 (Ala. 2003) (burden-shifting for immunity cases)
- Ex parte Rizk, 791 So.2d 911 (Ala. 2000) (immunity analysis under Cranman framework)
- Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala. 2000) (related to requirements for detailed rules/checklists)