Yates v. Town of Vincent
| Decision Date | 31 December 1992 |
| Citation | 611 So.2d 1040 |
| Parties | Joe A. YATES, et al. v. TOWN OF VINCENT. 1911065. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Gusty Yearout and C. Jeffery Ash of Yearout, Myers & Traylor, P.C., Birmingham, for appellants.
James R. Shaw and Jack M. Beard, Jr. of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for appellee.
Jere L. Beasley, Michael J. Crow and Julia A. Beasley of Beasley, Wilson, Allen, Main & Crow, P.C., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Ricky Lynn Smith.
Joe A. Yates, administrator of the estate of Clara Yates Phillips, deceased; Sherri and Jeffery Phillips, by and through their father and next friend, Wallace Phillips; and Wallace Phillips, individually (all hereinafter called "the plaintiffs"), appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the Town of Vincent in an action alleging wrongful death and personal injuries. We affirm.
On March 31, 1990, Clara Phillips was killed and Sherri and Jeffery were injured when the automobile in which they were riding collided with an automobile driven by Ricky L. Smith at the intersection of Shelby County Highways 62 and 85. The intersection, which was located inside the limits of the Town of Vincent, had been the scene of another accident within the preceding two weeks. During the earlier accident, a stop sign regulating traffic at the intersection was broken off.
Present at the scene on the occasion of the previous accident were a number of law enforcement officials, including Wayne Butler, a Vincent police officer; George Humphries, the Vincent police chief; and Shelby County sheriff's deputies Jim Roper and Billy Moore. At that time, Roper and at least one of the Vincent officials leaned the upper section of the post to which the stop sign was still attached against the bottom portion, which was protruding some distance from the ground. The stop sign had not been repaired at the time of the accident involving the Phillips family, and, therefore, traffic at the intersection was unregulated.
On March 4, 1991, the plaintiffs sued, inter alia, the Town of Vincent, alleging that it had breached its duty to maintain traffic control devices at the intersection of Shelby County Highways 62 and 85. The Town moved for a summary judgment, arguing that Shelby County was solely responsible for the maintenance and control of the intersection. 1 On March 18, 1992, the trial court granted the Town's motion and certified the resulting judgment as final pursuant to Ala.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
The plaintiffs concede that the "facts of this case are essentially undisputed." Brief of Appellants, at 8. Similarly, the record shows conclusively that until the events involved in this dispute, authority to maintain the stop sign at the intersection had been uniformly exercised by Shelby County.
The plaintiffs also acknowledge a number of cases in which this Court has held that the duty to maintain traffic control devices follows the entity vested with authority to control the relevant roadway. See Harris v. Macon County, 579 So.2d 1295 (Ala.1991) (); Perry v. Mobile County, 533 So.2d 602, 604 (Ala.1988) (); Nichols v. Town of Mt. Vernon, 504 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (). They contend, however, that this duty may arise where two governmental entities share or participate in the right of control. For this proposition, they rely on a footnote in Maharry v. City of Gadsden, 587 So.2d 966, 968 n. 1 (Ala.1991), in which we stated: "Last term this Court held in Harris v. Macon County, 579 So.2d 1295 (Ala.1991), that a right to control, or a right to participate in control, is necessary to hold a county or municipality responsible for negligent construction, design, or maintenance of a roadway."
The plaintiffs' reliance on the Maharry footnote is misplaced. Maharry involved traffic-control authority that was shared by a municipality with the State, not by a municipality with a county. A city's traffic-control authority over county roadways within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garner v. Covington County
...we "would probably reach a different result." I concur with the rest of the majority opinion. 1 This Court held in Yates v. Town of Vincent, 611 So.2d 1040 (Ala.1992), that a city and a county cannot concurrently exercise control over the same roadway. The parties here have not argued this ......
-
Ex parte Blount County
...had a common law duty to repair or replace the stop sign. Jones v. Blount County, 681 So.2d 202 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). In Yates v. Town of Vincent, 611 So.2d 1040 (Ala.1992), this Court held that the Town of Vincent did not have a duty to maintain a stop sign at an intersection that was not in......
-
Ex Parte Csx Transp., Inc.
...burden upon the cities and counties of this State, and that this Court rejected the concept of dual liability in Yates v. Town of Vincent, 611 So.2d 1040 (Ala. 1992). We do not read the main opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as broadly as do the City and the amici curiae. We agree with ......