Hilburn v. Utilities Bd. of Foley (In re Utilities Bd. of Foley), 265 So. 3d 1273

Riviera Utilities, a municipal utilities board, received an Alabama 811 line-locate ticket for "bridge construction" on July 22, 2014 near Baldwin County Road 52; the worksite was outside Foley city limits.
A Riviera line-locate technician (Deese) inspected the site, saw no underground utilities, did not mark anything, and did not notify supervisors; overhead Riviera power lines remained unmarked/uninsulated.
On July 31, 2014, Gulf Equipment employee Charles Hilburn was electrocuted when construction equipment contacted an uninsulated overhead line; Charles suffered permanent disabling injuries.
The Hilburns sued Riviera Utilities and four Riviera employees (DeBell, Wallace, Saucier, Tomlin) asserting negligence and wantonness (and loss of consortium).
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting various immunities; the trial court denied summary judgment. Riviera employees petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for mandamus relief; Hilburns conceded dismissal of some claims against certain employees.
The Supreme Court granted mandamus as to all four employees (wantonness claims and negligence claims against DeBell, Wallace, Tomlin; and both claims as to Saucier), but denied Riviera Utilities' claim of substantive municipal immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Riviera employees' wantonness claims survive	Hilburns alleged wanton conduct in failing to insulate/de-energize/re-route lines	Employees argued no genuine issue and immunity where applicable; Hilburns conceded some wantonness claims	Court: wantonness claims against employees dismissed (summary judgment granted)
Negligence claims vs DeBell, Wallace, Tomlin	Hilburns initially asserted negligence	Defendants argued entitlement to summary judgment (immunity / concessions)	Court: negligence claims against DeBell, Wallace, Tomlin dismissed (summary judgment granted)
Negligence claim vs Saucier (State-agent immunity)	Hilburns argued Saucier had constructive knowledge and duties that negate immunity	Saucier claimed Cranman State-agent immunity for supervisory/administrative acts	Court: Saucier entitled to State-agent immunity; negligence claim dismissed (summary judgment granted)
Riviera Utilities' liability (substantive immunity)	Hilburns: duty was to the workers on site, not the general public — substantive immunity inapplicable	Riviera Utilities: as a municipal utility performing public services and participating in 811 program, it is entitled to substantive immunity	Court: substantive-municipal immunity inapplicable because incident occurred outside Foley city limits; petition denied as to Riviera Utilities

Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (formulates State-agent immunity test)
Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala. 2000) (adopts Cranman test)
City of Birmingham v. Brown, 969 So.2d 910 (Ala. 2007) (extends State-agent immunity to municipal employees)
Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So.2d 385 (Ala. 1982) (describes substantive immunity for certain municipal functions)
Ex parte Price, 256 So.3d 1184 (Ala. 2018) (mandamus review standards and burden-shifting for Cranman immunity)
Ex parte Turner, 840 So.2d 132 (Ala. 2002) (standards for interlocutory mandamus review of immunity-based summary-judgment denials)