City of Brewton v. White's Auto Store, Inc.

Citation362 So.2d 226
PartiesThe CITY OF BREWTON, Alabama v. WHITE'S AUTO STORE, INC., a corp., et al. 77-263.
Decision Date15 September 1978
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Harold Albritton, Andalusia, Joe B. Thompson, Jr., Brewton, for appellant.

John L. Jernigan, III, of Stokes & Jernigan, Brewton, for appellees, White's Auto Store, Inc., a Corp., L. L. Salter, d/b/a Salter Floor Covering, Clyde Thomas, Hugo Moye, d/b/a Moye's Printing and Office Supplies, Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Griffin Sikes of Powell & Sikes, Andalusia, for appellee, White's Auto Store, Inc., a Corp.

Bert S. Nettles and J. F. Janecky of Bryan, Nelson, Nettles & Cox, Mobile, for appellees, Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co., American Manufacturer's Mut. Ins. Co., Home Ins. Co. and Home Indemn. Co.

Thomas M. Galloway, Jr. of Collins, Galloway & Smith, Mobile, for appellee, Motors Ins. Corp.

Johnnie B. Byrd, Jr. of Caffey & Owens, Brewton, for appellee, Safeco Ins. Companies, Inc. Bishop K. Walker, Jr. of Nash & Walker, Oneonta, for appellees, Control, Inc. and William E. Bright, Inc.

Drayton N. Hamilton, Montgomery, Gen. Counsel, Alabama League of Municipalities, amicus curiae.

ALMON, Justice.

The City of Brewton appeals by permission under Rule 5, ARAP, from an order of the circuit court denying its request for declaratory relief seeking to limit its liability under authority of Act No. 673, passed by the 1977 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature. We affirm.

During the early morning hours of January 6, 1976, an explosion occurred in the downtown area of Brewton, Alabama, causing widespread damage to property. During the next year, twelve lawsuits involving thirty-seven separate property owners were filed against The City of Brewton, and other defendants, seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000.00. All of the suits in this consolidated appeal, except one, are subrogation claims by insurance companies.

Subsequent to the filing of these suits, the Legislature passed Act No. 673 (found in § 11-93-1 through § 11-93-3, Code of Alabama, 1975) which limits the amount recoverable against a governmental entity for property damage, bodily injury, and death. As to property damage, § 2 of the Act provides:

" . . . Recovery of damages under any judgment against a governmental entity shall be limited to $100,000.00 for damage or loss of property arising out of any single occurrence. No governmental entity shall settle or compromise any claim for bodily injury, death or property damage in excess of the amounts hereinabove set forth."

By way of a counterclaim, Brewton sought declaratory relief to limit its liability under the Act. The plaintiffs opposed Brewton's claim on grounds that the Act is not to be given retrospective application and that the Act is unconstitutional. The court dismissed Brewton's counterclaim. We find that the Act is not retrospective and therefore do not reach the constitutional question.

Courts indulge every presumption in favor of construing actions of the legislature to have a prospective operation unless the legislature's intention is otherwise stated in express terms, or clearly, explicitly, and unmistakenly permit of no other meaning. 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes, § 350, p. 487. The rule was stated in Ex parte Buckley, 53 Ala. 42, 54-55 (1875), as follows:

" . . . Retrospective statutes, when within legislative competency, are not favored, and it is a sound rule of judicial construction, that they shall operate prospectively only, unless the terms show a clear legislative intent, that they shall operate retrospectively. Cooley's Con. Lim. 369; Sedgwick on Stat. and Cons. Law, 161. The statutes excluded from judicial favor, and subjected to this strictness of judicial construction statutes which may be properly denominated retrospective, are such as take away or impair vested rights, acquired under existing laws, or create a new...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Prince George's County v. Longtin
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 2011
    ...insofar as they demonstrate a judicial wariness towards any retroactive application of a damage cap. See, e.g., Brewton v. White's Auto Store, Inc., 362 So.2d 226 (Ala.1978) (applying presumption against retroactivity to a damages cap, stating that such statutes are “excluded from judicial ......
  • Prince George's County v. Longtin, Case No. CAL-01-23689
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 25, 2011
    ...they demonstrate a judicial wariness towards any retroactive application of a damage cap. See, e.g., Brewton v. White's Auto Store, Inc., 362 So. 2d 226 (Ala. 1978) (applying presumption against retroactivity to a damages cap, stating that such statutes are "excluded from judicial favor, an......
  • Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs of Mobile Cnty. v. Christopher
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • May 18, 2012
    ...prospective application unless the legislature's intent to the contrary is clearly and explicitly expressed. City of Brewton v. White's Auto Store, Inc., 362 So. 2d 226 (Ala. 1978).'"Lee v. Lee, 382 So. 2d 508, 509 (Ala. 1980)."State Home Builders Licensure Bd. v. Grzelak, 705 So. 2d 406, 4......
  • STATE DEPT. OF REVENUE v. Calhoun
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 24, 1998
    ...Jones v. Casey, 445 So.2d 873, 875 (Ala.1983). See also Kittrell v. Benjamin, 396 So.2d 93, 94 (Ala.1981); City of Brewton v. White's Auto Store, Inc., 362 So.2d 226 (Ala.1978). This general rule is, however, subject to an equally well-established exception, namely, that `remedial statutes.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT