Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court reviews a petition for a writ of mandamus arising from personal-injury claims against the Utilities Board of the City of Foley and several employees after a construction worker was electrocuted by an overhead power line. The court grants mandamus relief for the individual employees, concluding that the conceded claims against three employees and the wantonness claim against all employees fail, and that the remaining negligence claim against Saucier is barred by State-agent immunity. The court denies mandamus relief for Riviera Utilities because substantive municipal immunity does not apply to the alleged conduct occurring outside Foley's city limits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Riviera employees were entitled to mandamus relief and summary judgment on the wantonness claims based on the Hilburns' concessions.
- Whether DeBell, Wallace, and Tomlin were entitled to mandamus relief and summary judgment on the negligence claims based on the Hilburns' concessions.
- Whether Saucier was entitled to State-agent immunity and summary judgment on the negligence claim arising from his management of Riviera Utilities' risk, safety, and line-locate functions.
- Whether Riviera Utilities was entitled to substantive immunity as a municipal utilities board for claims arising from overhead power lines outside the City of Foley.
Holdings
- Because the Hilburns conceded that the wantonness claims against the Riviera employees should be resolved in the employees' favor, there was no genuine issue of material fact and the employees were entitled to summary judgment on those claims.
- DeBell, Wallace, and Tomlin were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims because the Hilburns conceded that judgment should be entered in their favor.
- Saucier was entitled to State-agent immunity and summary judgment on the negligence claim because his challenged conduct—managing the risk and safety department, supervising line-locate personnel, and operating without additional policies or procedures—fell within the Cranman categories of formulating policies and exercising judgment in administering a governmental department.
- Riviera Utilities was not entitled to substantive immunity because the claims arose from conduct involving power lines and a construction site outside the corporate limits of Foley, rather than from a governmental activity performed within the municipality for the general public.
Key quotations
“In light of the thousands of 811 tickets submitted annually, Saucier's failure to manage his department in a manner that would have enabled him to prevent the incident made the basis of this action falls squarely within the immunity from liability for actions based upon a State agent's formulating plans, policies, or designs or exercising his or her judgment in the administration of a department or agency of government, including, but not limited to, allocating resources and hiring and supervising personnel.” (265 So. 3d at 1282)
“We conclude that, because the Hilburns' claims against Riviera Utilities did not involve actions that took place within the city limits of Foley, Riviera Utilities clearly is not entitled to substantive immunity.” (265 So. 3d at 1284)
Factual background
Riviera Utilities received an Alabama 811 line-locate ticket stating that bridge construction would occur on County Road 52, where it owned and operated overhead power lines. A Riviera line-locate technician visited the site, found no underground Riviera utilities, and did not mark or note the overhead lines. During bridge repairs, a track hoe or steel piling contacted an uninsulated overhead line while Charles Hilburn was touching the equipment, causing severe and permanently disabling injuries. Hilburn and his wife sued Riviera Utilities and four employees individually, alleging negligence and wantonness based on the failure to insulate, de-energize, reroute, or adequately protect the power lines.
Procedural history
The Hilburns brought personal-injury, negligence, wantonness, and loss-of-consortium claims in the Baldwin Circuit Court arising from Charles Hilburn's electrocution at a bridge-repair project near Riviera Utilities' overhead power lines. The defendants asserted various immunity defenses and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motions without explanation. The defendants then sought mandamus review. The Alabama Supreme Court ordered summary judgment for DeBell, Wallace, Tomlin, and Saucier, but denied mandamus relief as to Riviera Utilities.
Remand instructions
The Baldwin Circuit Court was directed to vacate its August 29, 2017, order denying summary judgment as to the Riviera employees and to enter summary judgment in favor of DeBell, Wallace, Tomlin, and Saucier on the claims asserted against them. The petition was denied as to Riviera Utilities, and the claims against Riviera Utilities remained for further proceedings, including consideration of its statutory damages-cap defense.