King v. Colbert County

• Decision Date: 07 May 1993
• Citation: 620 So.2d 623
• Parties: Gary KING, v. COLBERT COUNTY, et al. 1920102.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 623

620 So.2d 623

Gary KING, v. COLBERT COUNTY, et al.

1920102.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 7, 1993.

J. Steve Clem of Lucas, Alvis & Kirby, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.

Braxton W. Ashe and Benjamin H. Albritton of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus & Tanner, Tuscumbia, for appellees.

INGRAM, Justice.

Gary King appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, Colbert County, the Colbert County Sheriff's Department, and John L. Aldridge, individually and in his capacity as sheriff of Colbert County.

The evidence, viewed most favorably for King, suggests: On January 15, 1992, Gary King was incarcerated in the Colbert County Jail. A fellow prisoner in King's cell stepped on a metal toilet to screw a light bulb into an overhead fixture. Because the outlet was faulty, the prisoner was electrocuted. While attempting to rescue the prisoner, King was injured. He received a severe electrical shock and suffered cuts, bruises, and abrasions. As a result of his injuries, King was hospitalized for several days.

King sued, alleging that his injuries were caused by negligent maintenance and wantonness on the part of the defendants. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants.

A summary judgment is proper when the motion and the materials submitted

                in support thereof "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."   Rule 56(c)(3), A.R.Civ.P.  The party moving for a summary judgment initially must make a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact.  Lee v. City of Gadsden, 592 So.2d 1036 (Ala.1992).  If this burden is met, the nonmovant may rebut the prima facie showing with "substantial evidence."  Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.  To satisfy the "substantial evidence test," the nonmoving party is required to present "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved."  West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).  "[O]n review of a summary judgment, we must view all the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and we must entertain all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the nonmovant."  Lee, 592 So.2d at 1038
                

I. The Claims Against Colbert County

The sheriff of Colbert County is a constitutionally established executive officer of the State of Alabama (Ala. Const.1901, Art. V, § 112, § 138) and is not considered an employee of the county for the purposes of imposing liability upon the county. Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442 (Ala.1987). The sheriff's authority over the jail is totally independent of the Colbert County Commission. Ala.Code 1975, § 14-6-1. Therefore, even if Aldridge can be held liable for his conduct as sheriff of Colbert County, Colbert County itself cannot be held vicariously liable for his actions or inaction.

King principally argues, however, that Colbert County had a statutory duty to maintain the jail in good repair. Ala.Code 1975, § 11-14-10 provides: "The county commission shall erect courthouses, jails and hospitals and other necessary county buildings, and such county commission shall have authority to levy a special tax for that purpose. Each county within the state shall be required to maintain a jail within their county." Under § 14-6-104, the county is obligated to pay any expenses for the maintenance of the jail. While legal custody and charge of the jail is vested in the sheriff, § 14-6-1, the chairman of the county commission is authorized to enter and inspect the jail once each week. § 11-14-22.

Interpreting the statute that is now § 11-14-10, this Court stated that the phrase "expense incident to the ... maintenance ... of each county jail" refers to "maintenance of the building and its equipment." Holcombe v. Mobile County, 229 Ala. 77, 78, 155 So. 640, 640 (1934). In Keeton v. Fayette County, 558 So.2d 884, 886 (Ala.1989), we held that, "by using the phrase 'maintain a jail' in § 11-14-10, the Legislature intended to require the county commission to keep a jail and all equipment therein in a state of repair and to preserve it from failure or decline."

In his affidavit in support of Colbert County's motion for summary judgment, Charles H. Thompson, the Colbert County administrator, stated,

"The maintenance and running of the county jail is not a function of Colbert County, but is a function of the Sheriff of Colbert County or his duly appointed deputy. The County of Colbert did not maintain the jail at the time alleged in the complaint and did not cause any part of the jail to become in disrepair or cause any condition which could cause an electrical shock to any inmate.... [T]he County did no [maintenance] or work inside the jail building."

Because we hold that § 11-14-10 places an affirmative duty upon the County to maintain the jail and keep it in a state of repair, we conclude that the court erred in granting Colbert County's motion for a summary judgment. Colbert County's assertion that it did not actively cause a condition of disrepair cannot, independently of other evidence, save the County from liability.

Colbert County had a legal duty to keep the jail in a reasonably safe state of repair. In order to prevail at trial, however,

                King must also prove that the County breached that duty and that its breach was the proximate cause of King's injury.  Considering Colbert County's motion for summary judgment and the

...