Ex Parte Estate of Reynolds

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Smith
• Citation: Ex Parte Estate of Reynolds, 946 So.2d 450 (Ala. 2006)
• Decision Date: 09 June 2006
• Docket Number: 1041533.
• Parties: Ex parte The ESTATE OF Johnny REYNOLDS and Charles Cole. (In re Marquez Miles v. The Estate of Johnny Reynolds and Charles Cole).

946 So.2d 450

Ex parte The ESTATE OF Johnny REYNOLDS and Charles Cole (In re Marquez Miles v. The Estate of Johnny Reynolds and Charles Cole).

1041533.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 2006.

B. Saxon Main and Gerald C. Swann, Jr., of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery, for petitioners.

Kenneth J. Mendelsohn, Thomas E. James, and Ellenann B. Yelverton of Jemison, Mendelsohn & James, P.C., Montgomery, for respondent.

SMITH, Justice.

Charles Cole, a defendant in an action pending in the Bullock Circuit Court, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Bernard Smithart of the Bullock Circuit Court to enter a summary judgment in his favor on the basis of State-agent immunity. The estate of Johnny Reynolds also petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Smithart to enter a summary judgment in its favor on the basis that Johnny Reynolds was entitled to State-agent immunity. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Facts and Procedural Background

On June 5, 2002, Marquez Miles was driving along U.S. Highway 82 in Bullock County near mile marker 195. Miles stated in a deposition that as he was driving through a curve, his tires left the roadway, and he was unable to return to the roadway.¹ Miles's vehicle left the road, struck a mailbox, and collided with a tree. As a result of the collision, Miles suffered extensive personal injuries.

On September 26, 2002, Miles sued Johnny Reynolds, who was employed by the Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT") as district engineer of ALDOT's District II, sixth division, which encompasses Bullock County, and Charles Cole, who is the district maintenance superintendent for District II. The complaint essentially alleged that Reynolds and Cole, in their personal capacities, negligently and wantonly failed to inspect, maintain, and repair the area of Highway 82 in which the collision occurred. Miles alleged that he was injured as a result of their negligence and wantonness.² Miles later amended the complaint to allege that Reynolds had negligently and wantonly supervised Cole and that both Reynolds and Cole had acted negligently, wantonly, willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority, and under a mistaken interpretation of the law.

In January 2005, Reynolds died, and apparently Reynolds's estate was substituted as a party. The parties have not informed this Court of the name of the executor of Reynolds's estate (the executor of Reynolds's estate and Reynolds's estate will be hereinafter referred to as "Reynolds").

On April 4, 2005, Reynolds and Cole filed a motion for a summary judgment. On June 2, 2005, the trial court denied the motion. Cole and Reynolds now petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter a summary judgment in their favor on the basis of State-agent immunity.

Standard of Review

"`While the general rule is that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable, the exception is that the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on a claim of immunity is reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus.' Ex parte Rizk, 791 So.2d 911, 912 (Ala.2000). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is: `(1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So.2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001)."

Ex parte Nall, 879 So.2d 541, 543 (Ala. 2003).

This Court has established a "burden-shifting" process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Ala.2003). In order to claim State-agent immunity, a State agent bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff's claims arise from a function that would entitle the State agent to immunity. Giambrone, 874 So.2d at 1052; Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705, 709 (Ala.2002). If the State agent makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the State agent acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, or beyond his or her authority. Giambrone, 874 So.2d at 1052; Wood, 852 So.2d at 709; Ex parte Davis, 721 So.2d 685, 689 (Ala. 1998). "A State agent acts beyond authority and is therefore not immune when he or she `fail[s] to discharge duties pursuant to detailed rules or regulations, such as those stated on a checklist.'" Giambrone, 874 So.2d at 1052 (quoting Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173, 178 (Ala.2000)).

Discussion

Reynolds and Cole argue that, as employees of ALDOT, Johnny Reynolds and Cole are entitled to State-agent immunity under the test set forth in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000).³ Because Johnny Reynolds and Cole are entitled to State-agent immunity, Reynolds and Cole argue, the trial court erred in failing to enter a summary judgment in their favor. We agree.

"State-agent immunity protects state employees, as agents of the State, in the exercise of their judgment in executing their work responsibilities." Ex parte Hayles, 852 So.2d 117, 122 (Ala.2002). In Cranman, this Court restated the rule governing State-agent immunity:

"A State agent shall be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity when the conduct made the basis of the claim against the agent is based upon the agent's

"(1) formulating plans, policies, or designs; or

"(2) exercising his or her judgment in the administration of a department or agency of government, including, but not limited to, examples such as:

"(a) making administrative adjudications;

"(b) allocating resources;

"(c) negotiating contracts;

"(d) hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel; or

"(3) discharging duties imposed on a department or agency by statute, rule, or regulation, insofar as the statute, rule, or regulation prescribes the manner for performing the duties and the State agent performs the duties in that manner; or

"(4) exercising judgment in the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State, including, but not limited to, law-enforcement officers' arresting or attempting to arrest persons; or

"(5) exercising judgment in the discharge of duties imposed by statute, rule, or regulation in releasing prisoners, counseling or releasing persons of unsound mind, or educating students.

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing statement of the rule, a State agent shall not be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity

"(1) when the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the Constitution of this State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated for the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or

"(2) when the State agent acts willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law."

792 So.2d at 405.

The evidence submitted in support of the summary-judgment motion indicated that Johnny Reynolds, as district engineer, was generally responsible for assessing the highway-improvement needs of District II, which includes 593 "lane" miles of road, 3 miles of bridges, and 2 rest areas. He frequently inspected the highways to discover defects and to determine if maintenance or repair work was required. Additionally, Johnny Reynolds supervised maintenance and construction activities within District II. When maintenance or repair work was necessary, Johnny Reynolds would rank and prioritize projects based on the degree of danger a condition created, the type of work needed, the availability of labor resources, and the particular road in question. In performing his duties, Johnny Reynolds used ALDOT's "Maintenance Manual" and "Field Operations Manual" ("the manuals").

The evidence presented in support of the summary-judgment motion also indicated that Cole, as district superintendent for District II, inspected the highways in District II and determined whether maintenance and repair was needed. If he determined such work was necessary, he was generally responsible for planning, scheduling, monitoring, supervising, and evaluating the work, as well as supervising ALDOT employees. Cole testified in an affidavit and by deposition that his job is to determine what kind of maintenance work is necessary and to rank and prioritize projects based on the degree of danger a condition created, the type of work needed, the availability of labor resources, and the particular road in question. Cole also used and consulted the manuals in performing his duties. The manuals, however, often do not provide explicit guidelines for particular situations, and Cole stated that he exercises judgment in deciding how best to accomplish his responsibilities.

Reynolds and Cole argue that this Court's decision in Grant v. Davis, 537 So.2d 7 (Ala.1988), requires that they be afforded State-agent immunity in this case. In Grant, the plaintiffs, Davis and Ingersoll, were traveling on Highway 49 south of Dadeville. The right rear tire of the motor vehicle in which they were riding slid off the road into a rut or drop-off on the shoulder. Davis, who was driving, attempted to guide the vehicle back onto the road, but she lost control, and the vehicle crashed. Both Davis and Ingersoll were injured.

Subsequently, Davis and Ingersoll sued several ALDOT employees, including Lorenzo Grant, the district engineer for the district in which the crash occurred, and Wood Gaston, the district superintendent.⁴ The plaintiffs alleged that Grant and Gaston were negligent, reckless, or wanton in failing to properly inspect, maintain, or repair the shoulder of the road on which the accident occurred. Grant and Gaston moved for a summary judgment on the ground that they were immune from suit. The trial court denied their motion, and they appealed.

The evidence demonstrated that...