Harden v. City of Muscle Shoals) (In re City of Muscle Shoals ()
Decision Date | 23 February 2018 |
Docket Number | 1160396 |
Citation | 257 So.3d 850 |
Parties | EX PARTE CITY OF MUSCLE SHOALS (In re: Reginald M. Harden v. City of Muscle Shoals) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
David J. Canupp and Brad A. Chynoweth of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C., Huntsville, for petitioner.
Joel Hamner of McCutcheon & Hamner, P.C., Florence, for respondent.
The City of Muscle Shoals ("the City") petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Colbert Circuit Court to vacate its denial of the City's motion for a summary judgment as to claims asserted against it by Reginald M. Harden stemming from injuries Harden sustained from falling through a grate at Gattman Park, a City-owned park. We grant the petition.
Rusty Wheeles, director of the City's Department of Parks and Recreation ("the Department"), testified by an affidavit attached to the City's motion for a summary judgment that In April 2014, the City accepted a bid from Big River Electric, Inc. ("Big River"), to replace the lights on the poles at the baseball fields at Gattman Park. Big River began replacement of the baseball-field lights in early May 2014. Wheeles testified that in order to perform the job, Big River arranged with the City to have access to a maintenance-shop area in Gattman Park where Big River could store the lights that were going to be installed on the poles at each baseball field. Wheeles also explained:
For his part, Harden in his deposition stated that before lunch on the day he fell through the grate he and White had made three or four trips delivering light boxes to their specific ball-field locations and that no one noticed the grate during those trips because it was covered with leaves. Harden described the accident as follows:
Both Mackey and Bailey confirmed in their affidavits that they had "received no reports or complaints about the metal grate prior to [Harden's] accident."
On March 27, 2015, Harden sued the City and multiple fictitiously named parties in the Colbert Circuit Court, alleging that the City was negligent in failing to safeguard Harden from the defective grate and that, as a proximate result of the City's negligence, he was injured. The parties commenced discovery, and the City took Harden's deposition. Harden did not take any depositions. On May 2, 2016, Harden filed an amended complaint in which he added a claim seeking the recovery of benefits under Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act.
On May 13, 2016, the City filed a motion for a summary judgment in which it asserted that it was entitled to dismissal of all claims against it based on the doctrine of municipal immunity recognized in § 11–47–190, Ala. Code 1975. The City also contended it could not be liable for the claim seeking recovery under the Workers' Compensation Act because the City was not Harden's employer.
On October 10, 2016, Harden filed a response in opposition to the summary-judgment motion in which he contended that the common-law doctrines pertaining to premises liability as to business invitees controlled and that under those doctrines he did not have to present evidence that the City had notice that the grate was defective. In support, Harden submitted his deposition and some pictures of the area where the accident occurred and of the grate. Harden did not present any evidence in opposition to the City's summary-judgment motion regarding the grate that contradicted the information provided in the affidavits submitted by Wheeles, Mackey, and Bailey. Harden conceded in his response that the City could not be liable for the workers' compensation claim.
On January 3, 2017, the trial court entered an order granting the City's summary-judgment motion with regard to Harden's claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act but denying the motion with respect to Harden's remaining claims against the City. The order did not provide a rationale for the trial court's judgment.
The City timely filed this mandamus petition on February 14, 2017.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Redd v. City of Tuskegee (Ex parte City of Tuskegee)
-
Bailey v. City of Leeds
...1175 (Ala. 1985), quoting in turn Alabama Power Co. v. Alexander, 370 So. 2d 252, 254 (Ala. 1979) ); see also Ex parte City of Muscle Shoals, 257 So. 3d 850, 856 n.1 (Ala. 2018) (noting that Garner abrogated the principle "that the existence of a duty is always a question of law for the Cou......
-
Dekalb-Cherokee Counties Gas Dist. v. Raughton
...foregoing, we reverse the trial court's judgment denying DC Gas's renewed motion for a JML, and we render a judgment in favor of DC Gas.257 So.3d 850REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. Stuart, C.J., and Bolin and Wise, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., concurs in the result.--------Notes:1 In his appellee......
-
CRM Servs., LLC v. Ga. Holding, LLC, 1180091
...fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. See, e.g., Ex parte City of Muscle Shoals, 257 So. 3d 850, 854 (Ala. 2018). ...