Copeland v. Samford University
Citation | 686 So.2d 190 |
Decision Date | 05 April 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 1931659,1931659 |
Parties | 115 Ed. Law Rep. 1088, 11 IER Cases 1016 William J. COPELAND, et al. v. SAMFORD UNIVERSITY. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
J. Michael Campbell, Birmingham, for Appellants.
Edward O. Conerly and Matthew W. Veal, Birmingham, for Appellee.
William J. Copeland and Emilea Copeland, parents of Rex Bartly Copeland, appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Samford University on their claim against Samford University based on the wrongful death of their son Rex. The complaint, filed against Samford University and William L. Slagle, a former professor at Samford, alleges in part that Samford University negligently hired Slagle; that Samford negligently supervised Slagle; and that Samford is liable under the theory of respondeat superior for the murder of their son, Rex, by Slagle. Slagle, who was convicted of murder pursuant to § 13A-6-2, Ala.Code 1975, is presently serving a life sentence for the crime. See Slagle v. State, 606 So.2d 193 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).
Following the entry of the summary judgment for Samford, the trial proceeded against Slagle, resulting in a $12,000,000 jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. Although the plaintiffs' notice of appeal named both defendants as appellees, the issues they raised in their brief concern only the defendant Samford; therefore, we consider Samford to be the only appellee. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment for Samford.
We have written the following in regard to our review of a summary judgment:
Diamond v. Aronov, 621 So.2d 263, 265 (Ala.1993).
Rex Copeland was a junior at Samford University at the time of his death. He was a member of the debate team and had been a member of that team since entering Samford as a freshman. By all accounts, he was an accomplished debater. William Slagle, his debate coach, had been hired by Samford in September 1987, the year Copeland entered Samford as a freshman. Slagle came to Samford from Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, where he had been employed for approximately 10 years as debate coach. From 1987 until Copeland's death, the debate team at Samford was nationally competitive.
Several months before his death, in preparation for an upcoming debate, Rex had been assigned a particular topic to research for his team. The team held a practice debate on September 21, 1989. Rex's team lost the practice debate and, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to Copeland, one could conclude that both Rex and Slagle were upset. Several days later Rex's body was discovered in his apartment.
In his summary judgment order, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laster v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., Inc.
...of the five elements in order for a summary judgment to be proper. Motes v. Matthews, 497 So.2d at 1123; see also Copeland v. Samford Univ., 686 So.2d 190, 191 (Ala.1996) ("`Once the moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, then the burden of g......
-
Shipley v. Perlberg
...some courts have refused to evaluate a summary judgment motion by considering testimony taken in another action. See Copeland v. Samford Univ., 686 So.2d 190 (Ala.1996); Gatton v. A.P. Green Svcs., Inc., 64 Cal.App.4th 688, 75 Cal. Rptr.2d 523 (1998). The Court distinguished these cases bec......
-
Synergies3 Tec Servs., LLC v. Corvo
...claim and entered a final default judgment against McLaughlin and Castro.4 Synergies3 and DIRECTV also cite Copeland v. Samford University, 686 So. 2d 190 (Ala. 1996), asserting that, in that case, this Court affirmed a summary judgment based on the trial court's finding that murder was a m......
-
Imbraguglio v. GREAT ATLANTIC TEA CO. INC.
...that "depositions taken for purposes of another case also may be utilized" in the summary judgment context). 9. See Copeland v. Samford Univ., 686 So.2d 190, 195 (Ala. 1996) (refusing to adopt the rule that "testimony from previous adversarial proceedings should be admitted for consideratio......