Rehling v. Carr
| Citation | 330 So.2d 423,295 Ala. 366 |
| Parties | C. J. REHLING, Toxicologist for the State of Alabama v. Ida Lee CARR. SC 1534. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1976 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Randolph P. Reaves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Jones & Monroe, Birmingham, for appellee.
Brittin T. Coleman and Michael H. Mobbs, Birmingham, for amici curiae, Eual E. Mooney and Bobby Maness.
This appeal presents for our review a summary judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit granting appellee Carr certain injunctive relief.
The parties involved on this appeal are the appellee, Mrs. Ida Lee Carr, who sought the injunctive relief, and the appellant, the toxicologist, C. J. Rehling, one of the parties against whom the injunction was sought. 1 An amicus curiae brief has also been submitted in support of the appeal by certain third parties who are the defendants in a worngful death action instituted by Mrs. Carr, seeking to recover damages for the death of her husband.
Mrs. Carr's husband was killed on June 4, 1975, when his automobile ran under the trailer of a tractor trailer truck. This collision caused a severe head injury to Mr. Carr, which apparently caused his death. Deputy County Coroner Parker, who was called to the scene of the collision, determined that Mr. Carr met his death as a result of injuries received in the accident. Mr. Carr's body was removed to a local hospital where a further examination of the body was made and a blood sample was drawn from the deceased's heart by Parker. Parker sent this blood sample to the State Toxicologist for an alcohol content analysis.
On June 16, 1975, Mrs. Carr's bill for declaratory judgment and an injunction was filed naming as defendants Deputy Coroner Parker and State Toxicologist Rehling. The motion alleged that the blood sample was illegally obtained and that irreparable injury would occur if the sample were not immediately returned to Mrs. Carr. The preliminary injunction was granted without notice on the day of its filing.
After a hearing at which both defendants Parker and Rehling were represented, a final decree was rendered on August 5, 1975, granting summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Carr. The trial court ruled that Parker's actions in taking the blood sample were unauthorized and that the submission of the blood sample to the State Toxicologist was also unauthorized. The decree ordered the return of the blood sample to Mrs. Carr and prohibited any public recording of the results of the blood sample tests.
Meanwhile, on July 15, 1975, Mrs. Carr filed suit against E. E. Mooney and B. Maness claiming damages in the amount of $300,000 for the wrongful death of Mrs. Carr's husband. In their amicus curiae brief, Mooney and Maness allege that they had no notice of the injunction proceedings, until after the final decree was issued. They state that they did not learn of the injunction until December, 1975, when their attorneys, in the course of preparing for trial in the wrongful death action, requested information from the State Toxicologist's office concerning the analysis of the blood sample taken from the deceased. Counsel for Mooney and Maness were then informed that the release of such information was prohibited by injunction. They maintain that evidence of the alcohol content of the blood of the deceased is extemely material to the issue of their liability in the wrongful death action.
On this appeal, State Toxicologist Rehling argues that Mrs. Carr sought the injunction for the purpose of restricting Mooney's and Maness' access to the blood alcohol analysis of the deceased's blood for purposes of their defense in the wrongful death action. Rehling contends that to obtain an injunction for the purpose of suppressing evidence of this nature constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, and constitutes an impermissible interference with a public officer's exercise of duties within his discretion or judgment.
In response, appellee Carr contends that the coroner's statutorily-conferred authority was exceeded by taking the blood sample. Appellee argues that the deceased's fatal head injury made his cause of death obvious and, therefore that the blood analysis in this case was improper. Appellee contends that as the spouse of the deceased she is entitled to the custody of the body, and parts of the body, of her deceased husband.
There is no authority of which we are aware, or of which we have been advised, authorizing a coroner or deputy coroner to take a blood sample from a deceased as was done in this case.
Tit. 15, § 76, Code 1940, authorizes a coroner to impanel a coroner's jury and to make inquiry of the facts and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Usrey
...as the deceased's surviving spouse, she had a possessory interest in his remains, citing Code of 1975, § 22-19-42, and Rehling v. Carr, 295 Ala. 366, 330 So.2d 423 (1976). She contends, in essence, that this possessory interest gave her standing to question the legality of the search of the......
-
Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc.
...sample. A coroner has no authority under Section 155, Supra, to take a blood sample for the purposes of analysis. Rehling v. Carr, 295 Ala. 366, 330 So.2d 423 (1976). Furthermore, the supreme court has indicated that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 155, Supra, is a condit......
-
Chapman v. Canoles
...offer were made. There was no error in refusing to permit evidence of the blood sample to be admitted into evidence. Rehling v. Carr, 295 Ala. 366, 330 So.2d 423 (1976); Lankford v. Red Wing Carriers, Inc., 344 So.2d 515, Ala.Civ.App. Chapman further complains that the trial court committed......
-
Usrey v. State
..."The law of Alabama vests in a surviving spouse a possessory interest in the remains of a deceased spouse" and cites Rehling v. Carr, 295 Ala. 366, 330 So.2d 423 (1976), and Southern Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala.App. 5, 105 So. 161 (1925). Response is made in brief of couns......