Ex parte Tuscaloosa County

• Decision Date: 08 September 2000
• Parties: Ex parte TUSCALOOSA COUNTY and E.E. "Billy" Tinsley, both in his individual capacity and as an agent of Tuscaloosa County. (Re Tuscaloosa County Commission; and E.E. "Billy" Tinsley, etc. v. Rufus L. Cosby).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

796 So.2d 1100

Ex parte TUSCALOOSA COUNTY¹ and E.E. "Billy" Tinsley, both in his individual capacity and as an agent of Tuscaloosa County.

(Re Tuscaloosa County Commission; and E.E. "Billy" Tinsley, etc. v. Rufus L. Cosby).

1982209.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 8, 2000.

Rehearing Overruled March 9, 2001.

Michael D. Smith of Hubbard, Smith, McIlwain, Brakefield, Shattuck & Browder, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for petitioners.

Richard H. Holston of Brooks & Hamby, P.C., Mobile, for respondent.

SEE, Justice.

The Court of Civil Appeals, without an opinion, affirmed a judgment in favor of Rufus L. Cosby and against E.E. "Billy" Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County. Tuscaloosa County Comm'n v. Cosby, 796 So.2d 1099 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). We granted certiorari review. Tinsley and the County argue that they are immune from liability on Cosby's claims. We agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

I.

Tinsley is the Tuscaloosa County license inspector. His duties include examining business-license records and instituting criminal proceedings against those who fail or refuse to get a business license when they are required by law to do so. See Ala.Code 1975, § 40-12-10. Tinsley carried out his duties according to the following procedure: The Tuscaloosa County license commissioner's office would provide Tinsley with a list of those who had previously obtained business licenses but who, after the license commissioner sent them a renewal notice, had not renewed their license. The license commissioner's renewal notice instructed recipients to destroy the notice "if not applicable." Tinsley or a member of his staff would then try by telephone or by mail to contact each person on the list. If any of his letters were returned by the Postal Service, then Tinsley or a member of his staff would go to the business address to determine whether the former licensee was still doing business there. To those who did not respond to the telephone calls or letters, Tinsley sent a letter advising that he would initiate court proceedings if they did not purchase a business license within seven days from the date of the letter. Tinsley would request from the Tuscaloosa County warrant clerk an arrest warrant for a person who did not respond to that letter.

In 1992, Rufus L. Cosby obtained a business license for a remodeling business so that he could perform a specific remodeling job in Northport. After he finished that job, which was completed before the 1992-1993 license year began on October 1, 1992, Cosby did no further remodeling work. In the late summer or early fall of 1992, Cosby received a renewal notice from the license commissioner's office. Because he did not intend to do any further business, he did not respond to the notice, which instructed him to destroy it "if not applicable."

When Cosby obtained the 1992 business license, he listed his home address as his business address. Both Cosby and his wife worked outside the home during business hours, and Cosby did not have a telephone answering machine at his home; thus, Tinsley's office staff was unable to reach Cosby by telephone during business hours. In December 1992, Cosby received a letter from Tinsley informing him that he was being cited for failure to renew his business license and that Tinsley would institute criminal proceedings against him if he failed to renew his business license. The letter gave a telephone number for Cosby to call if he had any questions. Cosby disregarded the letter.

In March 1993, a friend of Cosby's, who worked for the Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Department, told Cosby's wife that Cosby's name had appeared on a computer list, a list indicating that a warrant had been issued for Cosby's arrest. Cosby went to the Sheriff's Department and was processed; the processing included having his fingerprints and photograph taken. He was in the booking area of the jail for about an hour and a half, but was never placed in a cell. His wife signed a bond form, and he was released without having to post a money bond. The bond form stated that Cosby's court date was April 14, 1993.

Cosby went to the district court on April 14; however, his case was actually scheduled for the April 24 docket, and his name was not called on April 14. After sitting through the docket, he talked with Tinsley and explained that he was not doing business. Tinsley told him that the case would be dismissed, and the case was dismissed.

Cosby sued Tinsley, both in his individual capacity and in his official capacity, and Tuscaloosa County. He alleged malicious prosecution, defamation, abuse of process, negligent and/or wanton investigation, negligent and/or wanton administration of the license inspector's official duties, the tort of outrage, and false imprisonment; he sought compensatory and punitive damages. At trial, the circuit court granted the defendants' motion for a judgment as a matter of law as to some of Cosby's claims and submitted to the jury only his claims alleging malicious prosecution, negligence, and wantonness. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Cosby and against Tinsley and the County on all three claims, assessing $25,000 in compensatory damages against Tinsley and the County and $26,000 in punitive damages against Tinsley. The court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial, on the ground of juror misconduct. At a second trial, the court granted the defendants' motion for a judgment as a matter of law as to all claims except the malicious-prosecution claim. On that one claim, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cosby and against Tinsley and the County, assessing $35,000 in compensatory damages against Tinsley and the County, but assessing no punitive damages. The trial court entered a judgment on that verdict. Tinsley and the County filed a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which the trial court denied, and a motion for a new trial, which was denied by operation of law after the trial court had failed to rule on it within 90 days. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R.Civ.P. Tinsley and the County appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment, without an opinion. Judge Crawley dissented, concluding that Tinsley and the County were immune from liability on Cosby's malicious-prosecution claim.

II.

Tinsley and the County argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a judgment as a matter of law because, they argue, they are immune from Cosby's claims. Specifically, they argue that they are agents of the state for the purpose of enforcing the business-license laws and, therefore, that Cosby's claims against the County and against Tinsley in his official capacity are barred by the state's absolute, or sovereign immunity. They also argue that Cosby's claim against Tinsley in his individual capacity is barred by qualified, or discretionary-function, immunity.

Under Ala. Const. of 1901, § 14, the State of Alabama has absolute immunity from lawsuits. This absolute immunity extends to arms or agencies of the state, see, e.g., Armory Comm'n of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So.2d 991, 993 (Ala.1980), but generally does not extend to counties or county agencies, see, e.g., Wassman v. Mobile County Communications Dist., 665 So.2d 941, 943 (Ala.1995), or to municipalities or municipal agencies, see Jackson v. City of Florence, 294 Ala. 592, 600, 320 So.2d 68, 75 (1975). Nevertheless, when a county or municipality acts as an agent of the state, it is entitled to share in the state's absolute immunity. See Town of Loxley v. Coleman, 720 So.2d 907, 908-09 (Ala.1998); Rutledge v. Baldwin County Comm'n, 495 So.2d 49, 53 (Ala.1986). In Town of Loxley v. Coleman, this Court held that a town and its employee were acting as agents of the state in transporting a prison inmate, reasoning that the town and its employee were engaged in a function that the Alabama Department of Corrections otherwise would have had to perform. 720 So.2d at 908. In Rutledge v. Baldwin County Commission, this Court held that a county was "merely an agent of the Department of Public Safety for the purpose of collecting and transmitting applications and fees for the issuance of original or renewal driver's licenses," because "[that] function is specified by statute and is carried out in accordance with procedures promulgated by the Department of Public Safety." 495 So.2d at 53.

In Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), a case very similar to this one, the Court of Civil Appeals considered and rejected the argument that Tuscaloosa County and Tinsley were agents of the state for the purpose of enforcing the business-license laws. In Henderson, as in this case, the plaintiff sued Tinsley and the County after Tinsley had had the plaintiff arrested for operating a business without a business license when, in fact, he was not operating a business. Tinsley's office had followed the telephone-call and letter procedure outlined above before Tinsley requested a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest. In Henderson, as in this case, the plaintiff was arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and photographed, but the case against him was dismissed when he explained to officials that he was no longer operating a business.²

In Henderson, the Court of Civil Appeals held that Tinsley was not immune from the plaintiff's claims because he was "employed by Tuscaloosa County, not by the State of Alabama," and there was "no evidence indicating that the judgments against Tuscaloosa County and Tinsley affect any state interest." 699 So.2d at 1277. Thus, implicitly, the Court of Civil Appeals held that Tinsley was not a state agent. The Court of Civil Appeals held, alternatively, that "even if Tinsley was otherwise entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity, the evidence shows that the nature of Tinsley's actions would prevent immunity from applying," because "Tinsley never actually investigated to determine whether [the plaintiff] was operating a...