Title: City of Birmingham and William Gilchrist v. William Brown and Henry Clayton

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: 02/23/2004 - City of Birmingham v. Brown
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
_________________________
1050798
_________________________
City of Birmingham and William Gilchrist
v.
William Brown and Henry Clayton
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division
(CV-02-1386)
STUART, Justice.
The City of Birmingham ("the City") and William Gilchrist
appeal from a judgment entered on a jury's verdict awarding
damages 
to 
brothers 
William 
Brown 
and 
Henry 
Clayton
1050798
2
(hereinafter referred to collectively as "the brothers").  We
reverse and remand with directions.  
Facts
The brothers own 4.6 acres of property at the corner of
Ostlin Street and Wenonah-Oxmoor Road in Jefferson County.
The elevation of their property is lower than that of the
property around it; approximately 1.48 acres of the property
is situated in a floodplain.  Additionally, "Little Shades
Creek" runs across a portion of the property.
Alto Tarver and his wife own Tarver Consulting &
Development Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as
"Tarver").  Tarver owned a larger tract of land on Ostlin
Street across from the brothers' property; this tract of land
sits at a much higher elevation than does the brothers'
property.  Tarver proposed to develop its property into a
residential subdivision to be known as Pine Ridge Estates.
To develop the property, Tarver had to obtain a "civil
construction permit" from the City, which required that Tarver
comply with certain City regulations.   Tarver hired Ronald K.
Wilson, an engineer at Design Services, Inc., to design a
drainage system for the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision that
1050798
3
would comply with the City's regulations.  Wilson designed a
drainage system  and, on September 26, 2000, submitted a
letter to the Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits
for the City; that letter stated, in pertinent part:
"I hereby certify that all drainage structures
serving 
the 
proposed 
Pine 
Ridge 
[Estates]
Subdivision were designed using sound engineering
principles and practices.  I further certify that
all structures are sized to handle on-site storm
runoff, as well as off-site runoff which drains
through the site, based on a 10-year, 24-hour event
as stipulated by the City of Birmingham.
"As with all developments, post-development
runoff exceeds pre-development runoff due to an
increase in impervious area.  However, existing
natural 
watercourses 
and 
drainage 
structures
downstream of this development possess adequate
capacity to accommodate the increase in flow."
In January 2001, the City "accepted" Wilson's drainage-system
design, approved Tarver's proposed subdivision plat for Pine
Ridge Estates, and issued a  civil construction permit for the
subdivision.
The record indicates that water-drainage problems along
Ostlin Street (where the brothers' property is located)
existed before Tarver received approval from the City for the
subdivision and began construction.  Correspondence in January
2001 between residents of Sand Ridge Neighborhood, a
1050798
It appears that Jackson is involved with the Birmingham
1
City Council and that he acted as a liaison between the city
council and the Sand Ridge Neighborhood Association.  
4
neighborhood located in the vicinity of the brothers'
property, documented those problems and addressed the issue of
water drainage along Ostlin Street.  In a letter from Walter
Jackson  to Willie Cammack, president of the Sand Ridge
1
Neighborhood Association, dated January 3, 2001, Jackson
wrote, in pertinent part:
"As a result of our discussions, the [Birmingham]
City Council, at its meeting on January 2, 2001,
approved an appropriation of $60,000 to be used to
improve existing storm water provisions along Ostlin
Street, in addition to what is currently being done
by Tarver Development Company (TDC), and to assist
TDC with infrastructure improvements in that area:
including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.  Hopefully,
this will address the concerns of both Mr. & Mrs.
Harris and Mr. Brown."
This appropriation by the City was also addressed in the
minutes of the January 8, 2001, meeting of the Sand Ridge
Neighborhood Association.  The minutes indicate that "[t]he
[Birmingham] City Council ... approved an appropriation of
$60,000 to be used to improve existing storm water provisions
along Ostlin Street, in addition to what is currently being
done by Tarver ... and to assist Tarver with infrastructure
1050798
5
improvements along that area: including curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks."  The evidence in the record establishes that the
Birmingham City Council appropriated $50,000, not $60,000, to
Tarver in January 2001, for the purpose stated in Jackson's
letter.  
Tarver proceeded with the development of the Pine Ridge
Estates subdivision.  The drainage system for the subdivision
was installed.  The City then connected the drainage system to
an existing drainage pipe located along a right-of-way and
adjacent to the brothers' property.
The 
brothers 
sued 
Tarver, 
the 
City, 
and 
William
Gilchrist, the director of the Department of Planning,
Engineering, and Permits for the City, in his official and
individual capacity.  According to the complaint, as a result
of the drainage system installed for the Pine Ridge Estates
subdivision, surface water from other property was diverted
onto the brothers' property, thereby flooding it.  The
complaint alleged trespass; nuisance; negligent design and
construction of the drainage system; and willful and wanton
design of the drainage system.
1050798
6
The City and Gilchrist filed motions for a judgment as a
matter of law, arguing that the brothers' claims asserting
intentional wrongdoing should be dismissed.  The City argued
that claims of intentional wrongdoing were not allowed against
the City; Gilchrist argued that the brothers had presented no
evidence indicating that he had engaged in any intentional
wrongdoing.  The City and Gilchrist also argued that the
brothers had no evidence to indicate that the City, Gilchrist,
or 
any 
other 
City 
employee 
had 
acted 
with 
neglect,
carelessness, or unskillfulness in the design and construction
of the drainage system along Ostlin Road.
Gilchrist 
also 
argued 
that 
he 
was 
entitled 
to
"discretionary-function immunity" as to all claims.  He argued
that his job responsibilities required him "to run the
Department of Planning, Engineering, & Permits," and that
"[t]he method and process of running such a department
involved 
numerous 
discretionary 
functions 
–- 
approving
construction permits, managing employees, maintaining a
department budget, supervising projects, etc."  For these
reasons, Gilchrist maintained that he was not liable to the
1050798
The brothers did not name the engineer hired by Tarver
2
as a defendant in this action.
7
brothers for the flooding of the brothers' property.  The
trial court did not rule on these motions before the trial.
The case was tried on February 16, 2005.  The brothers
called Alto Tarver as their first witness.  Alto Tarver
testified that he installed the drainage system according to
the City's regulations, that he relied on his engineer's
design to install the drainage system, and that the engineer
certified that the existing waterways were adequate to handle
the post-development runoff.   Alto Tarver also identified
2
several photographs as reflecting various views of the
brothers' property; these photos revealed a great deal of
water standing on the property.  Alto Tarver testified that he
had seen the brothers' property with large amounts of water
standing on it both before and after the construction of the
Pine Ridge Estates subdivision.  
The brothers also called Randy Kemp, who works under the
direction of Gilchrist as the "acting city engineer" in the
Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits.   Kemp
explained the process of obtaining a civil construction
permit, stating:
1050798
8
"[W]e don't allow any [construction] work in the
city without issuing a permit for that work.  In the
case 
of 
infrastructure 
for 
a 
subdivision 
or
commercial development or streets or a storm sewer
and 
that 
kind 
of 
stuff, 
we 
issue 
a 
civil
construction permit.  We have criteria that we
publish and ask the developers to comply with, such
as, minimum pipe sizes.  The City ... has an 18-inch
minimum pipe size [requirement].  The design
calculations may not require that size of pipe but
we require [it] for certain reasons for maintenance
requirements and that kind of thing.  We have
standards 
that 
are 
different 
from 
other
jurisdictions.  We are checking for things like
that."
Kemp testified that Wilson's letter to the Department of
Planning, Engineering, and Permits certified that the drainage
structures proposed for the development of Pine Ridge Estates
complied with the City's requirements.  Kemp stated that the
City required such a letter from developers and/or their
engineers before it would issue a civil construction permit.
According to Kemp, Tarver's development complied with all of
the City's regulations pertaining to drainage pipes, and he
saw nothing negligent in the design of the drainage-sewer
system used in the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision.  Kemp
explained that it is "pretty common" for the City to
appropriate funds to assist developers in developing a
subdivision.
1050798
9
Kemp testified that the brothers' property was located in
a floodplain, as determined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.  Kemp stated that he had no knowledge as to
whether the brothers' property flooded before Tarver began
construction of the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision.  Kemp,
however, added that the presence of Little Shades Creek
running across the brothers' property could be the cause of
some of the flooding occurring on the property.  
The brothers next called Cammack, who testified that he
was familiar with the water problems on Ostlin Street both
before and after the development of Pine Ridge Estates.
Cammack testified that, to his knowledge, the brothers'
property had not flooded until after Pine Ridge Estates was
developed.  Cammack testified that he was aware that the
Birmingham City Council had appropriated funds to Tarver to
make improvements on Ostlin Street.  Cammack was unable to
explain why the City would have appropriated funds to
"improve" water problems on Ostlin Street around the brothers'
property before Tarver began his construction if the brothers'
property was not already flooding before that construction
began. 
1050798
10
Brown testified that the brothers' property did not flood
until Tarver developed his property into a subdivision.
According to Brown, after Pine Ridge Estates was developed,
water came across Ostlin Road to the extent of "washing the
road away."  Brown stated that even though he did not know
exactly what the City or Tarver had done incorrectly, it was
obvious that something had been incorrectly designed or
installed or that someone had acted improperly, because the
brothers' property was now flooding.  Brown admitted, however,
that he had no evidence, other than his testimony, indicating
that Tarver or the City had acted negligently in installing or
connecting the drainage pipes for the Pine Ridge Estates
subdivision.
Brown stated that he was "upset" about the flooding of
the property but that he had not sought medical treatment for
his emotional upset.  He also claimed that his damages totaled
$148,321, based on his estimate of the diminution in value to
the property.  He acknowledged that he had not consulted with
an expert to determine the amount of damages; he also
acknowledged that he had not consulted with an engineer or
other expert to determine if more water was flowing onto his
1050798
The trial court acknowledged that the brothers could not
3
have recovered any damages from the City for willful or wanton
or intentional conduct "of some agent, officer or employee of
the municipality engaged in work therefor and while acting in
the line of his duty," pursuant to § 11-47-190, Ala. Code
1975.
11
property now than before construction of the Pine Ridge
Estates subdivision and, if so, how much.  Brown testified
that the claim –- that more water was coming onto his property
after the construction of the subdivision than before –- was
based on "sight measurements." 
At the conclusion of the brothers' case, the trial court
entered judgments as a matter of law in favor of the City,
Gilchrist, and Tarver as to all claims alleging intentional,
willful, or wanton acts; as a result of this judgment, all of
the brothers' claims seeking punitive damages were dismissed.3
The City, Gilchrist, and Tarver then put on their
defenses on the remaining claims.  The City and Gilchrist
recalled Kemp as a witness.  He testified that the City does
not design or construct drainage systems for subdivisions but
that, based on his experience and expertise as an engineer, he
saw nothing negligent in the design of the drainage system
that had been installed at Pine Ridge Estates.
1050798
12
Tarver then briefly took the stand as a defense witness.
He testified that he did not design the drainage system that
had been installed at Pine Ridge Estates but that, to his
knowledge, the system met all the requirements and regulations
of the City.  At that point, all the defendants rested their
case.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, the City,
Gilchrist, and Tarver again moved for judgments as a matter of
law.  In their arguments, they pointed out that the trial
court had entered a judgment as a matter of law as to all
claims alleging intentional, willful, or wanton conduct.  They
asserted that the brothers' claim of negligent design and
installation of the drainage system was the only count
involving allegations of negligence and the only claim to
survive the trial court's earlier judgment as a matter of law.
The defendants then argued that the brothers had failed to
present evidence to support their claim of negligent design
and installation; therefore, the defendants argued, they were
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as to that sole
remaining count.
The trial court denied these motions, stating:
1050798
It appears that the trial court recognized that the
4
complaint and the evidence set forth the common-law claim
recognized in Sargent v. Lambert Construction Co., 378 So. 2d
1153, 1155 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979)("'An upper proprietor who
collects surface water into a channel and casts it upon
property of a lower proprietor to his damage, when if it were
not so collected the water would be scattered and diffused, is
liable for the damage though the property is located within an
incorporated town or city.'").
Tarver did not appeal the judgment against it; therefore,
5
we do not address that judgment.
13
"I'm going to deny your motion in regards to
negligence and allow that count to go to the jury as
well in regards to the trespass and regards to the
nuisance, along with the facts as set forth and what
is not listed as a count, but actually could be
classified as a count, those first paragraphs of the
complaint.  Now, I will give you an exception to my
ruling on that."4
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the brothers,
awarding them a total of $100,000; the jury specified that
Tarver was liable for $25,000 of that award, the City was
liable for $37,500, and Gilchrist was liable for $37,500.  The
City and Gilchrist appeal.5
Standard of Review
In Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Investors Life
Insurance Co., 875 So. 2d 1143, 1152 (Ala. 2003), this Court
stated the standard of review applicable to a trial court's
ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law:
1050798
14
"When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML
[judgment as a matter of law], this Court uses the
same standard the trial court used initially in
deciding whether to grant or deny the motion for a
JML.  Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate
question is whether the nonmovant has presented
sufficient evidence to allow the case to be
submitted to the jury for a factual resolution.  The
nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence
in order to withstand a motion for a JML.  A
reviewing court must determine whether the party who
bears the burden of proof has produced substantial
evidence 
creating 
a factual dispute requiring
resolution by the jury.  In reviewing a ruling on a
motion for a JML, this Court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant and
entertains such reasonable inferences as the jury
would have been free to draw.  Regarding a question
of law, however, this Court indulges no presumption
of correctness as to the trial court's ruling."
(Citations omitted.)
Analysis
Gilchrist and the City contend that the trial court erred
in denying their motion for a judgment as a matter of law
because, they say, they were entitled to immunity from
liability for the brothers' claims not based on intentional,
willful, or wanton conduct. 
Gilchrist claims immunity by virtue of being an employee
of the City.  In Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392, 405 (Ala.
2000), this Court stated:
1050798
15
"A State agent shall be immune from civil
liability in his or her personal capacity when the
conduct made the basis of the claim against the
agent is based upon the agent's
"(1) formulating 
plans, 
policies, 
or 
designs; 
or
"(2) exercising his or her judgment in the
administration 
of 
a 
department 
or 
agency 
of
government ....
"....
"(3) discharging duties imposed on a department
or agency by statute, rule, or regulation, insofar
as the statute, rule, or regulation prescribes the
manner for performing the duties and the State agent
performs the duties in that manner ...."
792 So. 2d at 405. Immunity applies to employees of
municipalities in the same manner that immunity applies to
employees of the State.  See Ex parte City of Birmingham, 624
So. 2d 1018 (Ala. 1993).  Ex parte Cranman, supra, did nothing
to alter this application.
The evidence established that Gilchrist was the director
of the Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits for
the City, the department responsible for approving the civil
construction permit for the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision,
and that Gilchrist, in his capacity as director, wrote Brown
a letter, a year or two after the Pine Ridge Estates
subdivision had been completed, addressing the brothers'
1050798
16
complaints about the flooding of their property.  Gilchrist
established his prima facie right to immunity.
 The brothers offered no evidence to properly rebut
Gilchrist's right to immunity.  The brothers' evidence does
not establish that Gilchrist had any personal involvement in
designing or installing the drainage system for Pine Ridge
Estates or that Gilchrist had any personal involvement in
issuing the civil construction permit to Tarver for the
subdivision other than by virtue of his employment in the
City's department responsible for issuing such permits.
Because the evidence establishes that Gilchrist is entitled to
immunity pursuant to Ex parte Cranman, the trial court erred
in denying Gilchrist's motion for a judgment as a matter of
law on the issue of immunity.  Therefore, we reverse the
judgment entered against Gilchrist and remand this case with
directions that the trial court enter a judgment as matter of
law in Gilchrist's favor.
We next address the judgment entered in favor of the
brothers against the City.  Section 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975,
addresses municipal liability.  See City of Prattville v.
Corley, 892 So. 2d 845 (Ala. 2003) (residents' claims of
1050798
17
negligence, trespass, and nuisance asserted against the City
of Prattville, arising from flooding of the City's storm
drains, fell within the scope of § 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975).
Section 11-14-190 provides:
"No city or town shall be liable for damages for
injury done to or wrong suffered by any person or
corporation, unless such injury or wrong was done or
suffered 
through the neglect, carelessness or
unskillfulness of some agent, officer or employee of
the municipality engaged in work therefor and while
acting in the line of his or her duty, or unless the
said injury or wrong was done or suffered through
the neglect or carelessness or failure to remedy
some defect in the streets, alleys, public ways or
buildings after the same had been called to the
attention of the council or other governing body or
after the same had existed for such an unreasonable
length of time as to raise a presumption of
knowledge of such defect on the part of the council
or other governing body and whenever the city or
town shall be made liable to an action for damages
by reason of the unauthorized or wrongful acts or
negligence, carelessness or unskillfulness of any
person 
or 
corporation, 
then 
such 
person 
or
corporation shall be liable to an action on the same
account by the party so injured.  However, no
recovery 
may 
be 
had 
under 
any 
judgment 
or
combination of judgments, whether direct or by way
of indemnity under Section 11-47-24, or otherwise,
arising out of a single occurrence, against a
municipality, and/or any officer or officers, or
employee or employees, or agents thereof, in excess
of a total $100,000 per injured person up to a
maximum of $300,000 per single occurrence, the
limits set out in the provisions of Section 11-93-2
notwithstanding."
1050798
The brothers do not argue that the injury was caused by
6
the City's failure "to remedy some defect in the streets,
alleys, public ways or buildings"; therefore, we do not apply
this portion of § 11-47-190.
18
Thus, to establish liability on the part of the City,
under § 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975, the brothers had to present
evidence indicating that some agent, employee, or officer of
the City had acted neglectfully, unskillfully, or carelessly.6
According to the evidence, the drainage system for the
Pine Ridge Estates subdivision submitted by Tarver for the
City's approval met all the requirements for a civil
construction permit as established by the City's Department of
Planning, Engineering, and Permits.  The brothers did not
offer any expert testimony to challenge the adequacy of the
requirements established by that department, and they did not
establish that anyone employed with or acting on behalf of the
City acted with neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness  in
reviewing the engineer's certification of the proposed
drainage system for Pine Ridge Estates, in accepting the
engineer's certification, or in issuing the civil construction
permit in reliance on the certification submitted by Tarver's
engineer.  At most, the brothers' evidence established that
the surface water from Tarver's property was caused to run
1050798
19
onto the brothers' property, causing flooding.  This evidence,
however, does not involve a showing that the "flooding" of the
brothers' property was "done or suffered through the neglect,
carelessness or unskillfulness of some agent, officer or
employee" of the City.  See Sargent v. Lambert Constr. Co.,
378 So. 2d 1153 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979).  Because the brothers
did not establish that their damage or injuries were suffered
as a result of some neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness
of an agent, officer, or employee of the City, they did not
establish a basis for recovery against the City. 
Therefore, we reverse the judgment entered in the
brothers' favor against the City and remand the case for the
trial court to enter a judgment as a matter of law in favor of
the City.
Because of our resolution of the foregoing issues, we
need not address the other issues raised on appeal by the City
and Gilchrist. 
Conclusion
The trial court erred in denying the motion for a
judgment as a matter of law filed by the City and Gilchrist.
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this
1050798
20
cause to the trial court with directions that it enter a
judgment in favor of the City and Gilchrist.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Woodall, Smith, Bolin,
Parker, and Murdock, JJ., concur.