 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Key v. City of Cullman11/16/2001
crime, and, therefore, they fall within the immunity provided by State-agent immunity for discretionary acts. See § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975; Ex parte Butts, supra.
The plaintiffs seek to have this court "infer" malice on the part of Bartlett because he did not conduct his investigation of the forgery in the manner they have advocated in their brief on appeal he should have. In making this argument, the plaintiffs characterize Bartlett as the person who identified them as perpetrators of the crime Bartlett was investigating; however, the evidence in the record does not support that assertion. Given the evidence in the record on appeal and our supreme court's holding in Ex parte Tuscaloosa County, supra, we cannot infer that Bartlett acted with malice toward the plaintiffs.
We conclude that the plaintiffs failed to present substantial evidence that would support an inference that Bartlett's actions with regard to his investigation of the forgery were willful or malicious. See West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, supra. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Bartlett.
The plaintiffs also argue that the City is not entitled to immunity from liability under the theory of State-agent immunity. In Ex parte City of Montgomery, 758 So. 2d 565 (Ala. 1999), D.P. Griffin, a police officer, arrested Christopher Luckie on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol. Luckie sued Griffin with regard to that arrest; Luckie also sued Griffin's employer , the City of Montgomery. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants; this court reversed that summary judgment. Our supreme court reversed this court's judgment, holding that the trial court's summary judgment was proper. The supreme court determined that Griffin's arresting Luckie was an act within his discretion as a law-enforcement officer. The court concluded Griffin was entitled to discretionary-function immunity under § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975, and, therefore, that the City of Montgomery was also immune under § 6-5-338. Ex parte City of Montgomery, 758 So. 2d at 570.
In this case, the plaintiffs sued the City of Cullman for the acts of its police officer, Bartlett. However, because we have concluded that Bartlett was entitled to immunity under § 6-5-338 as an agent of the State, we must hold that the City of Cullman is also entitled to that immunity. Ex parte City of Montgomery, supra.
Because we find that Bartlett and the City of Cullman are entitled to immunity under § 6-5-338, we need not reach the remaining issues raised in the plaintiffs' brief on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Yates, P.J., and Crawley and Pittman, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., concurs in the result.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|