Westbrook v. Dixon Mills Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
181 So. 3d 325
Ala.2015Background
- Dixon Mills Volunteer Fire Department is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) volunteer fire department serving an unincorporated Alabama community; firefighters receive no compensation.
- Assistant Chief Louis Cass White was driving the department fire truck with lights/siren en route to a structure fire when the truck and plaintiffs’ vehicle collided at an intersection; plaintiffs suffered serious injuries.
- White and the fire department moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under Alabama’s Volunteer Service Act, § 6-5-336; the trial court denied the motion.
- White’s testimony and two firefighter witnesses said the truck stopped at the stop sign, inched forward, stopped again, then entered the intersection and accelerated when crew warned of an oncoming vehicle; plaintiffs’ testimony was mixed but tended to say the truck was already entering the roadway when first seen.
- Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus from the Alabama Supreme Court to overturn the denial of summary judgment based on immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White is entitled to immunity under the Volunteer Service Act for negligence | Plaintiffs contend White’s conduct caused the collision and immunity does not apply if willful/wanton conduct is shown | White contends he was a volunteer acting in good faith within duties and did not act willfully or wantonly; therefore § 6-5-336 immunity applies | White is entitled to immunity; summary judgment directed for White on negligence claim |
| Whether the fire department (nonprofit) is immune from vicarious liability for White’s negligence | Plaintiffs sue the department for respondeat superior liability for volunteer’s negligence | Department argues it is a nonprofit volunteer entity and seeks immunity (and relied on cases immunizing municipalities) | Fire department is not immune under § 6-5-336(e) because that subsection expressly preserves nonprofit liability under respondeat superior; petition denied as to the department |
| Whether plaintiffs presented evidence of willful or wanton misconduct by White (to defeat immunity) | Plaintiffs argue facts (accelerating into intersection) could show wantonness | Petitioners argue the evidence at most shows negligent judgment, not consciousness of probable harm | Court held evidence did not show willful/wanton conduct as a matter of law; conduct was not sufficiently conscious/reckless to defeat immunity for White |
| Whether mandamus review was appropriate of the denied summary judgment | Plaintiffs implicitly argue ordinary appellate review should proceed | Petitioners argue denial of immunity-based summary judgment is reviewable by mandamus | Court applied established rule that denials grounded in immunity are reviewable by mandamus and proceeded accordingly; mandamus granted in part and denied in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Rizk, 791 So.2d 911 (Ala. 2000) (denial of immunity-based summary judgment reviewable by mandamus; summary-judgment standard)
- Ex parte Nall, 879 So.2d 541 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus standards and immunity-review principles)
- Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705 (Ala. 2002) (summary-judgment review when immunity asserted)
- Ex parte Essary, 992 So.2d 5 (Ala. 2007) (distinguishing negligence from wantonness for intersection conduct)
- Phillips ex rel. Phillips v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 988 So.2d 464 (Ala. 2008) (discussion of wantonness and requisite state of mind)
- Hollis v. City of Brighton, 885 So.2d 135 (Ala. 2004) (municipal vicarious immunity where volunteer firefighters are immune)
- Ex parte Labbe, 156 So.3d 368 (Ala. 2014) (contractual relationship does not necessarily alter volunteer status for purposes of immunity)