Title: Shearer v. Town of Gulf Shores

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

454 So. 2d 978 (1984)
Henry SHEARER & Don Bryan, as partners, d/b/a The Keg Korner
v.
The TOWN OF GULF SHORES, Alabama, a Municipal Corporation.
83-247.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 13, 1984.
John Earle Chason of Chason & Chason, Bay Minette, for appellants.
J. Don Foster and Thack H. Dyson of Foster, Brackin & Bolton, Foley, for appellee.
EMBRY, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a directed verdict for appellee in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County. Appellants, Henry Shearer and Don Bryan, partners in a business called The Keg Korner, sued the Town of Gulf Shores for negligence and willful misconduct in connection with the issuance of a privilege license. Their complaint is premised on the failure of the Town of Gulf Shores to ascertain whether appellants had a valid health department permit prior to the Town's issuing its privilege license.
The license was issued to appellants to permit them to sell beer from a portable building during the summer of 1982. They did not contact the Department of Public Health before starting their operation, but shortly thereafter were notified by the department that they were in violation of numerous health regulations. They chose to cease operating rather than to correct *979 the violations. This suit was filed, claiming the Town was under a duty to require a valid health permit prior to issuing the privilege license. It is claimed this duty is found in the text of § 22-20-5(c), Code 1975. It provides, in pertinent part:
Appellants contend that this duty inures to their benefit. The city issued the privilege license without demanding a valid health permit and it is alleged that representations were made to the effect that the health permits would not be necessary for the temporary business operation. Based on the foregoing, appellants contend the city has injured them by its negligence.
The elements required to support an actionable negligence claim are breach of a legal duty and an injury proximately resulting from the breach of duty (owed to plaintiffs). TG & Y Stores v. Atchley, 414 So. 2d 912, 914 (Ala.1982). Under the facts of this case, and applicable laws, we find no legal duty owed plaintiffs by the Town and therefore no actionable negligence.
The statute in question is aimed at protecting the public health and is for the protection of the public. It creates no duty of the Town owed appellants. The Code establishes this:
§ 22-20-5(d), Code 1975.
The appellants proceed on a false assumption. They cannot be saved by the scintilla rule (ARCP 50(e)) or a most favorable view of the evidence presented because "there is no duty to disclose laws which are accessible to and presumed to be known by all." Henson v. Estes Health Care Center, Inc., 439 So. 2d 74, 76 (Ala. 1983). Appellants are charged with knowledge of § 22-20-5(c), Code 1975, requiring them to be in possession of a valid health permit for operation of their business as a condition to obtaining a privilege license.
We find that the court below properly directed a verdict in favor of the Town because appellants failed to establish a prima facie case. We need not address the issue of damages or contributory negligence in light of this opinion.
The judgment below is due to be and is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.