Williams v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 156.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtFOSTER, J.
Citation219 Ala. 19,121 So. 14
Docket Number6 Div. 156.
Decision Date21 March 1929
PartiesWILLIAMS v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ET AL.

121 So. 14

219 Ala. 19

WILLIAMS
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ET AL.

6 Div. 156.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 21, 1929


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Joe C. Hail, Judge.

Action for damages by Mary Williams, as administratrix of the estate of Eugene Harris, deceased, against the City of Birmingham and others. Plaintiff takes a nonsuit, and appeals from adverse rulings on pleading in sustaining demurrers to the complaint. Affirmed.

Fort, Beddow & Ray, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Wilkinson & Burton, of Birmingham, for appellees.

FOSTER, J.

This is an action against the city and the members of the park and recreation board of the city for the negligent shooting of plaintiff's intestate by the caddy master on the public golf links of the city, alleged to be the servant, agent, or employé of defendants in the operation of the golf links at Highland Park County Club, a public city park. The court takes judicial notice of the public operations of the city of [121 So. 15] Birmingham, and its ordinances, laws, and by-laws. Acts 1915, p. 297, § 7.

The park in question may be assumed, by judicial notice, or on the theory of adverse inferences chargeable against plaintiff, to be a public enterprise, conducted by the city for the welfare of its citizens and the public generally, under the Act of September 29, 1923 (Acts 1923, p. 707). City of Tuscaloosa v. Fitts, 209 Ala. 635, 96 So. 771.

Under such act the power is given the city to provide parks, playgrounds, recreational centers, or park areas by and through a park and recreation board named by the city. There is provision made for reasonable fees or charges for access to or use or enjoyment of any playground, etc., conducted by the city, to be paid into and become a part of the park and recreation fund of the city. The members of the board serve as such without compensation. The city is required to appropriate to the park and recreation board annually a minimum amount of $50,000. The board is vested with the power to acquire and operate for the city public parks and playgrounds. It is also provided that in establishing and conducting such activities the city shall be engaged in public and governmental functions.

We have had numerous cases in Alabama against cities for alleged tortious conduct, when the liability of the city depended upon the question of whether it was then engaged in a corporate function, or a public and governmental function, holding that it is liable when engaged in a corporate function and not liable when engaged in a public and governmental function. We do not seem to have had a case in Alabama when the acts in question related to the operation of parks or recreation centers.

The cases are numerous to the effect that, in the construction or maintenance of a street, the function is corporate, and a liability accrues for negligent injuries by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 1, 1930
    ...v. Anniston, 214 Ala. 520, 108 So. 539, 46 A. L. R. 89; Bessemer v. Barnett, 212 Ala. 202, 102 So. 23; Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14; City of Tuscaloosa v. Fitts, 209 Ala. 635, 96 So. 771. It was recently declared in the Mississippi court as to liability of a board......
  • State Docks Commission v. Barnes, 1 Div. 723.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...190 Ala. 82, 91, 66 So. 702; Hillman v. City of Anniston, 214 Ala. 522, 108 So. 539, 46 A. L. R. 89; Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14; Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 57 N.W. 331, 334, 22 L. R. A. 857; State ex rel. Jones v. Froehlich, 115 Wis. 32, 91 N.W. 115, 116, 11......
  • City of Montgomery v. Quinn, 3 Div. 416.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 19, 1944
    ...horse case in this jurisdiction. However, the evidence before us is without the influence or analogy of Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14, where the action was against the city and members of the recreation board for the negligent shooting of plaintiff's intestate by t......
  • Jackson v. City of Florence
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • July 10, 1975
    ...legislature in nature' in a case where the legislature sought to declare a function to be governmental. Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14 No one believes in the validity of the rule of stare decisis and the necessity for stability in the law more than we do. We are equ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 1, 1930
    ...v. Anniston, 214 Ala. 520, 108 So. 539, 46 A. L. R. 89; Bessemer v. Barnett, 212 Ala. 202, 102 So. 23; Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14; City of Tuscaloosa v. Fitts, 209 Ala. 635, 96 So. 771. It was recently declared in the Mississippi court as to liability of a board......
  • State Docks Commission v. Barnes, 1 Div. 723.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...190 Ala. 82, 91, 66 So. 702; Hillman v. City of Anniston, 214 Ala. 522, 108 So. 539, 46 A. L. R. 89; Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14; Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 57 N.W. 331, 334, 22 L. R. A. 857; State ex rel. Jones v. Froehlich, 115 Wis. 32, 91 N.W. 115, 116, 11......
  • City of Montgomery v. Quinn, 3 Div. 416.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 19, 1944
    ...horse case in this jurisdiction. However, the evidence before us is without the influence or analogy of Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14, where the action was against the city and members of the recreation board for the negligent shooting of plaintiff's intestate by t......
  • Jackson v. City of Florence
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • July 10, 1975
    ...legislature in nature' in a case where the legislature sought to declare a function to be governmental. Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14 No one believes in the validity of the rule of stare decisis and the necessity for stability in the law more than we do. We are equ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT