Ex Parte Jackson County Bd. of Educ.
Decision Date | 22 August 2008 |
Docket Number | 1070878. |
Citation | 4 So.3d 1099 |
Parties | Ex parte JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. (In re John Congleton and Neely Congleton, as the parents and next friends of Kaitlyn Congleton, a minor v. Jackson County Board of Education et al.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mark S. Boardman and Clay R. Carr of Boardman, Carr, Hutcheson & Bennett, P.C., Chelsea, for petitioner.
Robert D. Word III, Scottsboro, for respondent.
The Jackson County Board of Education ("the Board") petitions for the writ of mandamus directing the Jackson Circuit Court to enter a summary judgment in its favor in the underlying action against it based on the immunity provision of Ala. Const. 1901, § 14. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
On November 22, 2002, Kaitlyn Congleton, then five years old, attended a high school football game with her aunt and uncle, Michelle and Michael Willingham. Deshler High School was playing North Jackson High School in the quarter-final round of the Alabama High School Athletic Association ("AHSAA") Class 4A football play-offs. The game was held at R.D. Hicks Stadium on the campus of North Jackson High School, which is located in Jackson County and owned by the Board.
Kaitlyn and her aunt and uncle watched the game from the visitors' bleachers located in the stadium. At some point during the game, Kaitlyn fell through an opening between the footboard and the seat of the bleachers. She suffered a cut to her head and broke both of her wrists.
Kaitlyn's parents, John Congleton and Neely Congleton, as Kaitlyn's parents and next friends, subsequently sued the Board. The Congletons sought damages under theories of breach of implied contract and breach of implied warranty.
After discovery, the Board filed a motion for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that the Congletons' action was barred by Ala. Const.1901, § 14, because, the Board maintained, it was an action against the State. The trial court denied the Board's motion, and the Board petitions this Court for mandamus relief.
"While the general rule is that denial of a summary-judgment motion is not immediately reviewable by an appellate court, the exception to the general rule is that a denial of a motion for a summary judgment grounded on a claim of immunity is immediately reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus ...."
Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705, 708 (Ala. 2002).
"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and is appropriate when the petitioner can show (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).
Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So.2d 1035, 1038-39 (Ala.2004).
Discussion
Ex parte Mobile County Dep't of Human Res., 815 So.2d 527, 530 (Ala. 2001) (Ala. Const.1901, § 14, confers on the State of Alabama and its agencies absolute immunity from suit in any court) that ; Ex parte Tuscaloosa County, 796 So.2d 1100, 1103 (Ala.2000) () .
Haley v. Barbour County, 885 So.2d 783, 788 (Ala.2004) (emphasis added). For purposes of § 14 immunity, county boards of education are considered agencies of the State. Louviere v. Mobile County Bd. of Educ., 670 So.2d 873, 877 (Ala.1995) (). Thus, this Court has held that county boards of education are immune from tort actions. See Brown v. Covington County Bd. of Educ., 524 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1988); Hutt v. Etowah County Bd. of Educ., 454 So.2d 973, 974 (Ala.1984).
Although it is undisputed that county boards of education are immune from actions seeking damages under tort claims, the Congletons contend on appeal, citing Sims v. Etowah County Board of Education, 337 So.2d 1310 (Ala.1976), that prior caselaw has allowed breach-of-contract actions to proceed against county boards of education. The Congletons contend that Kaitlyn purchased a ticket, or a ticket was purchased on her behalf, to enter the premises of North Jackson High School to watch the football game.1 The Congletons stated in their complaint that this purchase of a ticket created an implied contract:
"[The Congletons] further allege that the Defendant, The Board of Education of Jackson County, Alabama, entered into an implied contract with the [Congletons] wherein for consideration paid for said ticket, the Defendant by implication contracted, undertook, promised or agreed to provide premises in a reasonably safe condition for use by spectators...."
This implied contract, the Congletons maintained, placed the Board "under a legal duty to provide a reasonably safe premises" and created an implied warranty that the premises were safe from defects and were reasonably safe to use. The Congletons further alleged that the Board breached this duty and was thus liable for damages on theories of breach of contract and breach of warranty.
In response, the Board contends, among other things, that it is not a party to a contract with the Congletons in this case. Therefore, the Board argues, the Congletons' action against it actually sounds in tort and is barred. Specifically, the Board contended in its summary-judgment motion that there was no contractual relationship between it and the Congletons, because the football game was conducted by the AHSAA, not the Board.2
"The elements of a breach-of-contract claim under Alabama law are (1) a valid contract binding the parties; (2) the plaintiffs' performance under the contract; (3) the defendant's nonperformance; and (4) resulting damages." Reynolds Metals Co. v. Hill, 825 So.2d 100, 105-06 (Ala. 2002). The elements of a valid contract include: "`an offer and an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to terms essential to the formation of a contract.'" Ex parte Grant, 711 So.2d 464, 465 (Ala. 1997) (quoting Strength v. Alabama Dep't of Fin., Div. of Risk Mgmt., 622 So.2d 1283, 1289 (Ala.1993)). Ellis v. City of Birmingham, 576 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala.1991) (quoting Berry v. Druid City Hosp. Bd., 333 So.2d 796, 799 (Ala.1976)).
In support of its summary-judgment motion, the Board presented substantial evidence indicating that it was not a party to any contract with Kaitlyn, that it made no offer, and that it received no consideration.3 Specifically, the Board provided the deposition and the affidavit of Kenneth Harding, a supervisor with the Board who was the principal of North Jackson High School on the date Kaitlyn was injured.
Harding testified that during the regular football season, North Jackson High School would conduct home games, charge admission to the game, "and keep the money." This changed during the football play-off games, which were under the "jurisdiction" of the AHSAA. For those games, the AHSAA would "sponsor" the game, set the ticket prices, and specify "all the rules and regulations." The AHSAA would schedule the game, determine who would be the "home" and "visiting" team for the game, and require the "home" team to provide the venue for the game. The AHSAA would supply the actual tickets for the play-off game and would require the "home" school to provide volunteers to sell those tickets. The money collected at play-off games was sent to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perryman v. Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.)
...Educ., 524 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala. 1988) ; Hutt v. Etowah Cty. Bd. of Educ., 454 So.2d 973, 974 (Ala. 1984).’" Ex parte Jackson County Bd. of Educ., 4 So.3d 1099, 1102–03 (Ala. 2008)."Because county boards of education are local agencies of the State, they are clothed in constitutional immunit......
-
Adams v. Demopolis City Sch.
..., 524 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala. 1988) ; Hutt v. Etowah County Bd. of Educ. , 454 So.2d 973, 974 (Ala. 1984)." Ex parte Jackson County Bd. of Educ. , 4 So.3d 1099, 1102–03 (Ala. 2008). Ex parte Hale Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 14 So.3d 844, 848 (Ala. 2009). "City boards of education are local agencies of......
-
Perryman v. Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. & Lester Turk (In re Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. & Lester Turk)
...So. 2d 623, 625 (Ala. 1988); Hutt v. Etowah Cty. Bd. of Educ., 454 So. 2d 973, 974 (Ala. 1984).'"Ex parte Jackson County Bd. of Educ., 4 So. 3d 1099, 1102-03 (Ala. 2008).Page 14 "Because county boards of education are local agencies of the State, they are clothed in constitutional immunity ......
-
Ala. Dep't Of Corr. v. Merritt.
...to both the State and State agencies. Ex parte Alabama Pep' t of Human Res., 999 So. 2d 891, 895 (Ala. 2008); Ex parte Jackson County Bd. of Educ., 4 So. 3d 1099, 1102 (Ala. 2008); and Ex parte Alabama Pep't of Transp., 764 So. 2d 1263, 1268 (Ala. 2000). "What we have come to refer to as 'S......