Patton v. Black
Decision Date | 05 August 1994 |
Citation | 646 So.2d 8 |
Parties | 96 Ed. Law Rep. 852 Michael A. PATTON, Sr., individually and as father and next friend of Keeva Patton, a minor v. Julia BLACK. 1920926. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Hollingsworth of Freeman, Hollingsworth & White, P.C., for appellant.
Donald B. Sweeney, Jr. and Leigh Hardin Hancock of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for appellee.
Michael A. Patton, Sr., individually and as father and next friend of Keeva Patton, a minor, appeals from the dismissal of his negligence action against Julia Black, Keeva's physical education teacher. The trial court held that the action was barred by the discretionary function immunity given to teachers. We reverse and remand.
Patton sued Black for damages based on injuries sustained by Keeva while performing jumping and tumbling exercises. The complaint alleged that Black negligently failed to instruct Keeva, and negligently failed to instruct other students who were engaged in assisting Keeva and others, on the proper performance of such exercises; that she was negligent in being away from her class and leaving the class unsupervised while the students were performing such exercises: that her negligence proximately caused Keeva's injuries; and that she negligently failed to provide medical care for Keeva once it was determined that Keeva had been injured.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 895D (1979), adopted by this Court in Woods v. Wilson, 539 So.2d 224 (Ala.1988), states that public officials and employees are immune from liability while acting "within the general scope of their authority in performing functions that involve a degree of discretion." Id. at 225. This discretionary function immunity has been held to apply to teachers in W.L.O. v. Smith, 585 So.2d 22 (Ala.1991). The defendant argued that she was immune on this basis and that the action should be dismissed because, the defendant argued, the plaintiff alleged no facts in the complaint indicating that the defendant was performing a ministerial function as opposed to a discretionary function and no facts supporting the negligence claims. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss is set forth in Ex parte City of Birmingham, 624 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Ala.1993), quoting Seals v. City of Columbia, 575 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Ala.1991):
(Emphasis original.) The distinction between discretionary functions and ministerial functions is often cloudy and difficult to discern. While there is no single test to determine the discretionary or ministerial nature of a particular function, this Court has turned to Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 895D, cmt. f, to aid in its decision. It states in part:
See DeStafney v. University of Alabama, 413 So.2d 391 (Ala.1982). This Court has also held that such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, Grant v. Davis, 537 So.2d 7, 8 (Ala.1988), and that courts must focus on the process employed in making the determination. Smith v. Arnold, 564 So.2d 873, 876 (Ala.1990)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cranman v Maxwell
...628 So. 2d 558 (Ala. 1993) (victim of injury in gym class could not sue individual with indirect supervisory duties); Patton v. Black, 646 So. 2d 8 (Ala. 1994) (claim by student victim of tumbling accident presented jury question as to immunity of teacher); Roden v. Wright, 646 So. 2d 605 (......
-
Hardy v. Town of Hayneville, Civ.A. 99-A-86-N.
...adheres to the Alabama courts' reluctance to grant motions to dismiss based on discretionary function immunity. See Patton v. Black, 646 So.2d 8, 10 (Ala. 1994) ("[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of discretionary immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant......
-
In re: Cranman v. Maxwell
...628 So. 2d 558 (Ala. 1993) (victim of injury in gym class could not sue individual with indirect supervisory duties); Patton v. Black, 646 So. 2d 8 (Ala. 1994) (claim by student victim of tumbling accident presented jury question as to immunity of teacher); Roden v. Wright, 646 So. 2d 605 (......
-
Ex parte Cranman
...Walters, 628 So.2d 558 (Ala.1993) (victim of injury in gym class could not sue individual with indirect supervisory duties); Patton v. Black, 646 So.2d 8 (Ala.1994) (claim by student victim of tumbling accident presented jury question as to immunity of teacher); Roden v. Wright, 646 So.2d 6......