Title: Johnnie Mae Sawyer, as daughter and administrator of the estate of Arthur Waters, deceased v. Sylvia Collins et al.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 
05/24/2013 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1120301 
Johnnie Mae Sawyer, as daughter and administrator 
of the 
estate of 
Arthur Waters, deceased 
v. 
S y l v i a C o l l i n s e t a l . 
C e r t i f i e d Question from the 
United States D i s t r i c t Court 
f o r 
the Southern D i s t r i c t of 
Alabama, Northern D i v i s i o n 
(No. 2:12-0020) 
WISE, J u s t i c e . 
T h i s C o u r t 
i n i t i a l l y a c c e p t e d t h e q u e s t i o n 
c e r t i f i e d t o 
i t by t h e U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
D i s t r i c t 
C o u r t f o r 
t h e Southern 
1120301 
D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a ; however, we now d e c l i n e t o answer t h e 
q u e s t i o n . 
QUESTION DECLINED. 
Moore, C.J., and S t u a r t , 
P a r k e r , 
Murdock, 
Main, and 
B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . 
B o l i n and Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 
2 
1120301 
SHAW, J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
As d i s c u s s e d below, the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r 
the 
Southern 
D i s t r i c t 
of Alabama, N o r t h e r n 
D i v i s i o n 
("the 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t " ) , has 
c e r t i f i e d 
t o 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
a 
q u e s t i o n 
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 18, 
A l a . R. 
App. 
P. 
I d i s s e n t from 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o d e c l i n e t o answer the 
q u e s t i o n . 
The 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t e x p l a i n e d the f a c t s of t h i s case 
as 
f o l l o w s i n i t s c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s 
C o u r t : 
" P l a i n t i f f J o h n n i e Mae 
Sawyer i s the 
p e r s o n a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
of 
the 
E s t a t e 
of A r t h u r Waters, 
a 
deceased Alabama p r i s o n e r . Defendant James Hood 
was 
the P e r r y County S h e r i f f d u r i n g the time of W a t e r s ' 
i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; Defendants S y l v i a C o l l i n s and Bobby 
Sanders were j a i l e r s a t the P e r r y County J a i l 
d u r i n g 
t h a t p e r i o d . Waters was 
c o n v i c t e d 
of 
a s s a u l t 
and 
s u r r e n d e r e d 
a t 2:00 
p.m. 
on June 20, 
2011, 
t o 
the 
P e r r y County J a i l . C o l l i n s and Sanders were on 
d u t y . 
A t s u r r e n d e r , Waters c o m p l a i n e d t h a t he d i d not 
f e e l 
w e l l . He was p l a c e d i n i s o l a t i o n u n t i l the n e x t 
day. 
A t 
t h i s 
p o i n t , he 
t o l d 
the 
j a i l e r s 
t h a t he 
f e l t 
worse and was 
i n p a i n . He 
a l s o c o m p l a i n e d t h a t 
he 
was 
n a u s e a t e d , needed 
t o 
v o m i t , 
had 
d i a r r h e a , 
a 
f e v e r , and was 
h a v i n g t r o u b l e b r e a t h i n g . Waters 
was 
g i v e n 
a mat 
so he 
c o u l d l i e on 
the 
f l o o r 
i n 
the 
g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n 
c e l l . He 
s o i l e d h i m s e l f and 
the 
mat w i t h v o m i t and f e c e s . D u r i n g t h i s t i m e , he asked 
f o r 
m e d i c a l 
a t t e n t i o n from the j a i l e r s 
C o l l i n s 
and 
Sanders. Other inmates 
a l s o 
i n f o r m e d 
C o l l i n s 
and 
Sanders 
about 
W a t e r s ' 
p a i n 
and 
symptoms 
and 
r e q u e s t e d 
m e d i c a l 
c a r e 
f o r him. 
He 
was 
g i v e n 
one 
dose 
of 
I b u p r o f e n . 
C o l l i n s 
and 
Sanders 
d i d 
not 
c o n t a c t 
S h e r i f f Hood r e g a r d i n g W a t e r s ' c o n d i t i o n . 
C o l l i n s ' and S a n d e r s ' s h i f t ended a t 4:00 
p.m. 
3 
1120301 
"The 
j a i l e r s 
on the n e x t 
s h i f t gave Waters a 
[ p a i n r e l i e v e r and a s o f t d r i n k ] and c a l l e d 
S h e r i f f 
Hood. Hood i n s t r u c t e d t h e 
j a i l e r s 
t o have Waters 
complete 
a m e d i c a l form t o see a d o c t o r the 
n e x t 
day. The j a i l e r t o l d the S h e r i f f t h a t Waters was not 
c a p a b l e of c o m p l e t i n g the form, b u t Hood r e i t e r a t e d 
h i s 
i n s t r u c t i o n s . The j a i l e r s c a l l e d Hood t w i c e more 
d u r i n g 
the 
n e x t 
t h r e e hours 
t o 
ask 
f o r m e d i c a l 
a t t e n t i o n [ f o r W a t e r s ] , b u t he d e n i e d t h e i r r e q u e s t . 
A t about 8:00 
p.m., 
a j a i l e r gave Waters [ a n o v e r -
t h e - c o u n t e r g a s t r o - i n t e s t i n a l m e d i c a t i o n ] and c a l l e d 
S h e r i f f Hood f o r the f o u r t h t i m e . Hood d e n i e d the 
r e q u e s t t o p r o v i d e Waters w i t h a d d i t i o n a l 
m e d i c a l 
a t t e n t i o n . A t about the same t i m e , o t h e r inmates had 
l i f t e d Waters onto a t o i l e t . Waters began t o shake 
and 
then 
d i e d . 
The 
cause 
of d e a t h was 
pneumonia 
compounded by t u b e r c u l o s i s . 
(Doc. 37, Doc. 
61) 
"On 
J a n u a r y 
20, 
2012, 
P l a i n t i f f 
J o h n n i e 
Mae 
Sawyer 
f i l e d 
s u i t 
a s s e r t i n g 
t h a t 
a l l of 
the 
Defendants, t h r o u g h d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e , 
f a i l e d 
to 
p r o v i d e m e d i c a l 
t r e a t m e n t 
as 
r e q u i r e d 
i n the 
E i g h t h Amendment. 
P l a i n t i f f 
has 
a l s o 
a s s e r t e d a 
c l a i m 
o f Alabama common 
law 
n e g l i g e n c e 
a g a i n s t 
Defendants 
C o l l i n s and Sanders. As t o the s t a t e law 
c l a i m , C o l l i n s and Sanders a s s e r t immunity 
p u r s u a n t 
to Alabama Code § 14-6-1." 
Alabama Code 1975, § 14-6-1, p r o v i d e s : 
"The s h e r i f f has the l e g a l c u s t o d y and charge o f 
the 
j a i l 
i n h i s or her c o u n t y and 
a l l 
p r i s o n e r s 
committed 
t h e r e t o , 
e x c e p t 
i n 
cases 
o t h e r w i s e 
p r o v i d e d by law. 
The 
s h e r i f f may employ p e r s o n s t o 
c a r r y out h i s or h e r d u t y t o o p e r a t e the 
j a i l 
and 
s u p e r v i s e the inmates housed t h e r e i n f o r whose a c t s 
he 
o r 
she 
i s 
c i v i l l y 
r e s p o n s i b l e . 
Persons 
so 
 
employed by 
the 
s h e r i f f 
s h a l l 
be 
a c t i n g 
f o r 
and  
under the d i r e c t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n of the 
s h e r i f f  
and 
s h a l l be 
e n t i t l e d t o the same i m m u n i t i e s 
and 
 
l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n s g r a n t e d t o the s h e r i f f under the  
g e n e r a l 
laws 
and 
the 
C o n s t i t u t i o n 
of Alabama 
o f 
4 
1120301 
1901, as l o n g as such p e r s o n s a r e a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e  
l i n e and scope o f t h e i r 
d u t i e s and a r e a c t i n g i n  
c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e l a w . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
The 
i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t i s whether 
S y l v i a C o l l i n s and 
Bobby Sanders ("the 
j a i l e r - d e f e n d a n t s " ) a r e 
immune from J o h n n i e Mae Sawyer's s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s under 
t h i s 
Code s e c t i o n . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e whether t h e 
j a i l e r - d e f e n d a n t s were " a c t i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e law." 
The 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e p h r a s e "the law" had n o t 
been d e f i n e d by an Alabama a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t . 
I n 
t h e i r 
b r i e f s t o t h i s 
C o u r t , t h e p a r t i e s o f f e r two 
d r a m a t i c a l l y 
d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e p h r a s e "the 
law." 
The p l a i n t i f f , Sawyer, seems t o t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t 
"the law" i n c l u d e s a l l s t a t u t e s , b o t h c r i m i n a l and c i v i l , and 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s (such as t h e 
E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
C o n s t i t u t i o n ) and any p o l i c i e s o r p r o c e d u r e s 
adopted by S h e r i f f Hood. 
The j a i l e r - d e f e n d a n t s 
t a k e t h e 
narrower 
v i e w 
t h a t 
"the law" r e f e r s 
t o 
c r i m i n a l 
laws. 
A p p a r e n t l y 
i n response 
t o 
t h e s e 
d r a m a t i c a l l y 
d i f f e r i n g 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 18, A l a . 
R. App. P., c e r t i f i e d t o t h i s C o u r t t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : 
5 
1120301 
a 
i s 
no 
w i t h 
"Alabama Code § 14-6-1 p r o v i d e s 
t h a t p e r s o n s , 
such as 
j a i l employees, who 
a c t or u n d e r t a k e d u t i e s 
a t the d i r e c t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n of the s h e r i f f 
are 
immune from s t a t e law c l a i m s 
t o the same e x t e n t 
as 
a S h e r i f f , 'as 
l o n g 
as he 
or she 
i s a c t i n g w i t h i n 
the 
l i n e 
and 
scope 
of 
h i s 
or 
her 
d u t i e s 
and 
i s 
a c t i n g 
i n c o m p l i a n c e 
w i t h 
the 
l a w . ' 
The 
f i r s t 
r e q u i r e m e n t -- a c t i n g w i t h i n the 
l i n e and scope of 
t h e i r 
d u t i e s 
-- 
i s 
the 
same 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
f o r 
s h e r i f f t o r e c e i v e immunity. 
However, 
t h e r e 
r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a s h e r i f f a c t ' i n c o m p l i a n c e 
the l a w ' i n o r d e r 
t o r e c e i v e immunity. 
How 
s h o u l d 
t h i s c o u r t i n t e r p r e t ' a c t i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h 
the 
l a w ' i n o r d e r 
t o not r e n d e r the g r a n t of immunity 
m e a n i n g l e s s 
or 
the 
p h r a s e 
s u p e r f l u o u s ? 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
what 
' l a w ' 
i s encompassed 
by 
the 
r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a 
j a i l employee a c t i n c o m p l i a n c e 
w i t h the l a w ? " 
R u l e 1 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. 
P., 
s t a t e s : 
"When i t s h a l l 
appear 
t o 
a 
c o u r t 
of 
the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
are 
i n v o l v e d 
i n any 
p r o c e e d i n g 
b e f o r e 
i t q u e s t i o n s 
or p r o p o s i t i o n s of law of 
t h i s 
S t a t e w h i c h are d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
of s a i d cause and 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
are 
no 
c l e a r 
c o n t r o l l i n g p r e c e d e n t s 
i n 
the 
d e c i s i o n s of the Supreme C o u r t of t h i s S t a t e , 
such 
f e d e r a l 
c o u r t 
may 
c e r t i f y 
such 
q u e s t i o n s 
or 
p r o p o s i t i o n s 
of 
law 
of 
t h i s 
S t a t e 
t o the 
Supreme 
C o u r t of Alabama f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g such 
q u e s t i o n s 
or 
p r o p o s i t i o n s 
of 
s t a t e 
law, 
w h i c h 
c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n 
the Supreme C o u r t of t h i s 
S t a t e , 
by w r i t t e n o p i n i o n , may 
answer." 
I b e l i e v e t h a t the q u e s t i o n 
c e r t i f i e d i s c l e a r , t h a t no 
o t h e r 
f a c t s are n e c e s s a r y f o r t h i s C o u r t t o answer the q u e s t i o n , 
and 
t h a t our answer would be d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
of t h i s case. 
6 
1120301 
I t seems a x i o m a t i c 
t h a t b o t h c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s and 
c i v i l 
s t a t u t e s , as w e l l as c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r e c e p t s , 
are 
"the 
law" 
f o r purposes of § 14-6-1. 
I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t the 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t seeks t o know whether, as Sawyer s u g g e s t s , p o l i c i e s 
and 
p r o c e d u r e s f o r h a n d l i n g 
s i c k inmates propounded by a 
s h e r i f f 
a r e , f o r purposes of § 14-6-1, "law" t h a t must be f o l l o w e d 
by 
j a i l e r s a c t i n g f o r and under the d i r e c t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n of 
the s h e r i f f . 
The answer t o t h a t q u e r y has not been d e c i d e d by 
an Alabama c o u r t , and i t i s c l e a r l y an i s s u e an Alabama c o u r t 
s h o u l d be the 
f i r s t t o d e c i d e . 
To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , 
t h i s 
C o u r t does not need t o know the c o n t e n t of any 
p o l i c i e s 
or 
p r o c e d u r e s S h e r i f f Hood has 
i s s u e d . 
And 
the p r i n c i p l e s f o r 
d e t e r m i n i n g whether any such p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s have the 
f o r c e of law or l e g a l e f f e c t are s e t t l e d . 
In S t e w a r t T i t l e Guaranty Co. v. S h e l b y R e a l t y 
H o l d i n g s , 
LLC, 
83 So. 3d 469 
( A l a . 2011), t h i s C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o answer 
a q u e s t i o n 
c e r t i f i e d by a f e d e r a l c o u r t because the 
q u e s t i o n 
was 
not, 
as 
r e q u i r e d 
by 
R u l e 
18, 
" d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
of 
s a i d 
cause." 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
we 
were 
c a l l e d upon t o d e c i d e 
the 
p r o p e r v a l u a t i o n method t o be 
used i n c a l c u l a t i n g damages 
r e g a r d i n g 
a 
c e r t a i n 
i n s u r a n c e 
c l a i m . 
The 
q u e s t i o n 
was 
7 
1120301 
p r e s e n t e d 
i n terms 
of 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
a d o p t i n g 
one 
of 
two 
v a l u a t i o n methods d i s c u s s e d by o t h e r cases i n o t h e r 
s t a t e s . 
We 
d e c l i n e d t o answer the q u e s t i o n because the 
t e x t 
of 
the i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y , which was not a d d r e s s e d by the 
c e r t i f i e d 
q u e s t i o n 
or by the p a r t i e s , appeared p o s s i b l y t o p r o v i d e i t s 
own v a l u a t i o n method. 
The 
c e r t i f y i n g c o u r t , we d e c i d e d , might 
u l t i m a t e l y 
r e s o r t 
t o 
t h a t 
method 
i n s t e a d 
of 
any 
method 
p r o v i d e d 
i n our answer t o the 
c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n . 
In 
o t h e r 
words, i t was 
p o s s i b l e t h a t a n s w e r i n g the q u e s t i o n 
as posed 
would r e s u l t i n t h i s C o u r t ' s s e l e c t i n g a v a l u a t i o n method f o r 
use 
i n Alabama t h a t might, under the f a c t s of t h a t c a s e , 
be 
s u p e r s e d e d by 
the 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y and 
not 
u t i l i z e d by 
the 
c e r t i f y i n g c o u r t . 
C i t i n g the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the 
q u e s t i o n 
must be d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
of the cause, we 
h e l d : 
" F u r t h e r m o r e , and perhaps more i m p o r t a n t l y , because 
the 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t 
might 
d e t e r m i n e 
t h a t 
the 
v a l u a t i o n i s s u e can be p r o p e r l y and 
f a i r l y 
r e s o l v e d 
by l o o k i n g t o the 
s p e c i f i c language of the p o l i c y , 
a n s w e r i n g the 
c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n would 
n e c e s s i t a t e 
our 
f a s h i o n i n g 
a b r o a d 
r u l e w i t h 
the 
p o s s i b i l i t y 
t h a t i t would have no a p p l i c a t i o n t o the p a r t i c u l a r 
f a c t s p r e s e n t e d . That p o s s i b i l i t y 
a l s o r e n d e r s 
us 
u n a b l e t o answer the q u e s t i o n . 
See Palmore v. 
F i r s t  
Unum, 841 So. 2d 233, 
235 
( A l a . 2002) ('In o r d e r 
f o r 
t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r 
a c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n 
from a 
f e d e r a l 
c o u r t , 
the 
q u e s t i o n 
must be, 
among 
o t h e r 
t h i n g s , " d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
of 
[the u n d e r l y i n g ] 
cause."' 
( q u o t i n g R u l e 1 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. 
P . ) ) . " 
8 
1120301 
I do not 
see 
t h a t t h i s r a t i o n a l e f o r d e c l i n i n g t o answer 
the q u e s t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e 
i n t h i s case: i f t h i s C o u r t were t o 
answer the q u e s t i o n , the d i s t r i c t c o u r t would a p p l y the answer 
t o the q u e s t i o n , w h i c h c o u l d d e t e r m i n e the 
i s s u e b e f o r e i t . 
We 
a l s o d e c l i n e d 
t o answer the q u e s t i o n i n S t e w a r t 
T i t l e 
because, i f the i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y p r o v i d e d the p r o p e r 
v a l u a t i o n 
method, 
we 
d i d 
not 
need 
t o 
i n t e r p r e t 
the 
p o l i c y 
f o r 
the 
f e d e r a l 
c o u r t , 
because 
" [ c ] o n s t r u i n g 
an 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y 
t r e a d s 
no 
new 
ground 
under 
Alabama 
law, 
and 
p r e c e d e n t 
d e t e r m i n a t i v e of such an 
a n a l y s i s 
i s w e l l 
s e t t l e d . 
P u b l i c B l d g . Auth. of H u n t s v i l l e 
v. S t . P a u l F i r e & 
s v i l l e v. S t . P a u l F i r e  
M a r i n e 
I n s . 
Co., 
80 
So. 
3d 
171, 
180 
( A l a . 
201( 
('[T]he 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
does 
0 
So. 
3d 
171, 
180 
( A l a . 
2010) 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
does 
not 
p r e s e n t a n o v e l l e g a l i s s u e . 
R a t h e r , the 
r u l e s 
of 
c o n t r a c t 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
and 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
are 
w e l l 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
i n Alabama 
' ) . " 
I f 
an 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
the 
p o l i c y would have answered 
the 
q u e s t i o n 
i n S t e w a r t 
T i t l e , 
then t h e r e was 
no 
" q u e s t i o n 
or 
p r o p o s i t i o n 
of 
law" 
t h a t 
was 
u n c l e a r ; i n s t e a d , 
a l l t h a t 
was 
r e q u i r e d 
was 
the a p p l i c a t i o n of our c l e a r law on 
i n t e r p r e t i n g 
the t e x t of i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s . 
That i s not 
the s i t u a t i o n i n 
the 
i n s t a n t m a t t e r b e f o r e us, because the 
law 
i s not 
c l e a r : 
the 
term 
"law" 
as 
i t i s used 
i n 
§ 14-6-1 has 
y e t 
t o 
be 
d e f i n e d . 
We 
are not 
c a l l e d upon t o a p p l y law 
t o f a c t s , as 
we 
9 
1120301 
were i n S t e w a r t T i t l e . 
I n s t e a d , we are c a l l e d upon t o e x p l a i n 
the law. 
I would answer the q u e s t i o n 
c e r t i f i e d . 
10