97 So. 3d 747
Ala.2012Background
- Walker petitions for writ of mandamus to require circuit court to dismiss Harris's claims against Walker as immune under Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const.1901.
- Harris sued the county and Walker in individual and official capacities for negligence related to an April 9, 2011 vehicle collision.
- Walker asserted absolute State immunity in the 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, arguing he acted within line and scope of employment.
- County defendants argued they cannot be vicariously liable for a sheriff/deputy because sheriffs are state, not county, employees.
- The trial court granted the county defendants' 12(b)(6) motion and denied Walker's motion; no factual findings were made.
- The Alabama Supreme Court held that Harris's complaint alleged Walker acted within line and scope of employment, thus Walker is immune under Art. I, § 14; mandamus granted and claims against Walker dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker is immune from suit under Art. I, § 14 when acting within line and scope | Walker is an executive officer; immunity applies | State immunity extends to deputies acting in official capacity | Walker immune; mandamus granted |
| Whether Harrison's individual-capacity claims survive given complaint alleges line and scope | Complaint alleges Walker acted within line and scope | Immunity may bar individual-capacity claims if acting within scope | Claims against Walker in individual capacity barred by immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928 (Ala.2003) (deputy not immune without evidence of on-duty scope; distinguishing early stage)
- Ex parte Blankenship, 893 So.2d 303 (Ala.2004) (when undisputed on-duty line and scope, deputy immune from suit)
- Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442 (Ala.1987) (sheriff as state executive officer; immunity in official duties)
- Drain v. Odom, 631 So.2d 971 (Ala.1994) (deputy sheriffs immune in official capacity for acts performed as deputies)
- Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Youth Servs., 880 So.2d 393 (Ala.2003) (discusses standard and lack of immediate immunity without evidence)
- Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788 (Ala.1998) (establishes review scope for mandamus and Rule 12(b)(6) context)