Ex parte Spivey
| Citation | 846 So.2d 322 |
| Parties | Ex parte Donald SPIVEY and Jerry Peacock. (In re Heath Wright et al. v. Jet Equipment and Tools, Inc., et al.) |
| Decision Date | 27 September 2002 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Mark S. Boardman and Phillip F. Hutcheson of Boardman, Carr, Weed & Hutcheson, P.C., Chelsea, for petitioners.
Joseph A. Morris of Morris, Cary & Andrews, L.L.C., Dothan, for Heath Wright.
Heath Wright and his parents, Betty Wright and Solomon Wright,1 sued Donald Spivey, Jerry Peacock, and others, on theories of negligence and wantonness for injuries Heath sustained while operating a stationary spindle wood shaper in a building-construction class at a public school. Peacock and Spivey each moved for a summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to State-agent immunity. The trial court denied their summary-judgment motions. Peacock and Spivey petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter a summary judgment for them on the basis that they are entitled to State-agent immunity. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Jerry Peacock is a vocational teacher and Donald Spivey is the career and technical director at the Houston County Career and Technical Center ("the vocational center"). During the week of August 20, 1999, Peacock's class, in which Heath Wright was a student, was making raised-panel doors. As part of the project, the students were to use a model W-SS3 spindle wood shaper manufactured by Jet Equipment and Tools, Inc., to make straight cuts on three sides of a board and an arched cut on the fourth side. The shaper has "infeed" and "outfeed" "fences" positioned lengthwise on the right and left sides of the blade, respectively, from the perspective of the operator. The fences assist the operator in guiding the wood into the blade.
The owner's manual for the shaper states: "Keep guards in place and in working order" and "Never perform shaping operation with safety guard removed." Under the heading, "Shaping When Using the Fence as a Guide," the owner's manual states, Peacock testified that he had not read the owner's manual for this specific shaper because the shaper was transferred from another school and the owner's manual did not come with it. He testified, however, that he had read the owner's manual for a smaller shaper he had ordered. A label affixed to the shaper with the heading "SAFETY RULES" also states, in part, "CAREFULLY READ INSTRUCTION MANUAL BEFORE OPERATING MACHINE," and "DO NOT OPERATE WITHOUT ALL GUARDS AND COVERS IN POSITION." (Capitalization in original.)
Peacock's class used a textbook titled Modern Cabinetmaking. Peacock photocopied portions of the textbook for the students to read. Peacock testified in his deposition that he had reviewed the entire textbook. The textbook includes a discussion of spindle shapers similar to the one that injured Heath. The textbook's directions for installing the spindle shaper include the following:
Immediately following this statement is a section titled "Shaper Setup and Operation"; that section states:
Following this statement is a discussion titled "Shaping with fences," which begins, "Install infeed and outfeed fences when cutting straight edges." Following this discussion of the use of fences is a section titled "Shaping with a collar and starting pin," which includes the following:
Moreover, in a chapter titled "Health and Safety," the textbook also states:
Peacock testified in his deposition that he had written the courses of study for building-construction technology, carpentry, and cabinetmaking in "Alabama Course of Study: Trade & Industrial Education" ("the Course of Study"), a manual published by the State Department of Education. The building-construction technology section of the Course of Study states: "Students will ... [a]pply safety rules, regulations, and procedures." The Course of Study then lists types and sources of such safety rules including regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"). It is undisputed that OSHA regulations concerning woodworking machines are not binding as a matter of law in Alabama public schools. However, Peacock testified, "[W]e use their standards as a good practice." The following regulations promulgated by OSHA were in effect at the time of the accident:
Peacock testified in his deposition that his responsibilities are derived from the Course of Study, his job description, and the "Houston County Center for Career and Technical Education Faculty Handbook and Policies and Procedures" ("the faculty handbook"). In addition to the responsibility of teaching students job-related skills, Peacock's job description includes the following:
The faculty handbook states, in relevant part:
As director, Spivey is Peacock's supervisor. Spivey testified in his deposition that his responsibilities were derived from his job description. Spivey's job description states, in part: Spivey testified that this meant that he was required to "check all programs to determine if safety is being taught in the course of study," and to ensure that teachers practice safety. Spivey also testified that it was his responsibility to ensure that teachers teach students the proper and safe cutting techniques on the shaper and that he would not approve of any machine or technique he deemed to be unsafe. Spivey testified, "[I]f the machine was not as safe as it should have been ... it should have been taken out." However, Spivey testified that "[t]hat machine had everything on it we were aware of."
The shaper was purchased from Jet Equipment by the Houston County school system before or during 1986. The shaper had been used at another high school in Houston County by another vocational teacher before it was transferred to the vocational center in approximately 1987. Peacock testified that the shaper had never had a ring guard or a spindle guard from the time it was transferred to the vocational center. Peacock further testified that he knew of no point of operation guard that could be ordered to fit the shaper....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ala. State Univ. v. Danley
...held that the exercise of judgment in supervising personnel falls within the parameters of State-agent immunity. See Ex parte Spivey, 846 So.2d 322, 331–32 (Ala.2002) (noting that "[a] State agent is also immune from civil liability for exercising judgment in supervising personnel" and that......
-
H.Y. ex rel. K.Y. v. Russell County Bd. of Educ.
...and rules were not sufficiently detailed. Id. The court distinguished the guidelines and rules in Giambrone from those in Ex parte Spivey, 846 So.2d 322 (Ala.2002). In Spivey, a student was injured while using a shaper that he claimed lacked certain safety features. Giambrone, 874 So.2d at ......
-
Hill v. Cundiff
...rules or regulations must be so “detailed” as to “remove a State-agent's judgment in the performance of required acts.” Ex parte Spivey, 846 So.2d 322, 333 (Ala.2002) (quotation omitted).Doe has not alleged how Title IX creates rules or regulations so detailed as to “remove a State-agent's ......
-
Hill v. Cundiff, 14-12481
...rules or regulations must be so "detailed" as to "remove a State-agent's judgment in the performance of required acts." Ex parte Spivey, 846 So. 2d 322, 333 (Ala. 2002) (quotation omitted). Doe has not alleged how Title IX creates rules or regulations so detailed as to "remove a State-agent......