Title: Doran v. City of Madison

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

519 So. 2d 1308 (1988)
James Edward DORAN, et al.
v.
CITY OF MADISON, et al.
86-1194.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 15, 1988.
*1309 John L. Sims, Hartselle, for appellants.
Barnes F. Lovelace, Jr. of Caddell & Shanks, Decatur, for appellee City of Madison.
Don G. DeCoudres, Birmingham, for appellees Steve Howell Fields and Jack M. Milford.
HOUSTON, Justice.
The plaintiffs, James Edward Doran, Alesia Lake, and Suzanne Nelson, appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants Steve Howell Fields, Jack M. Milford, and the City of Madison, in this action to recover damages for personal injury. We affirm.
This action arose out of a collision between a vehicle occupied by the plaintiffs and one occupied by Toney Dean Lindsey, at an intersection in the City of Decatur. At the time of the collision, Lindsey was attempting to elude police officers employed by the City of Decatur; Christopher Barnes, a police officer employed by the City of Madison; and Fields and Milford, police officers employed by the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority. Plaintiffs filed suit against Lindsey, alleging negligence and wantonness; and against the City of Decatur and its police officers; the City of Madison and its police officer, Barnes; the City of Huntsville; and Fields and Milford, police officers employed by the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, alleging against all of them negligence in the pursuit of Lindsey. The City of Decatur and its officers were granted a summary judgment, and this Court affirmed that judgment. See Doran v. City of Decatur, 510 So. 2d 813 (Ala.1987). The record indicates that the plaintiffs erroneously alleged in their complaint that Officers Fields and Milford were employed by the City of Huntsville; consequently, the City of Huntsville was granted a summary judgment, and the propriety of that judgment is not at issue on this appeal. The record also indicates that the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority was not sued, and that Officer Barnes and Lindsey were never served.
The circumstances surrounding the collision are set out in affidavits of Officers Barnes, Fields, and Milford filed in support of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and affidavits of John Tilden Dillard and Ronald Renae Johnson filed in opposition to the motion.[1] In his affidavit, Officer Barnes stated:
Officer Milford's affidavit reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
In his affidavit, Officer Fields, in pertinent part, stated:
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants are liable for their injuries because *1312 Officers Barnes, Fields, and Milford negligently pursued Lindsey, causing him to collide with the plaintiffs' vehicle.
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P. All reasonable doubts concerning the existence of a genuine issue of fact must be resolved against the moving party. Fountain v. Phillips, 404 So. 2d 614 (Ala.1981).
Section 32-5A-7, Code 1975, reads as follows:
"(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
Section 32-5A-115, Code 1975, provides:
The affidavits of Officers Barnes, Fields, and Milford prima facie show that those officers exercised due care during the pursuit *1313 of Lindsey. Therefore, unless the affidavits of Dillard and Johnson present a genuine issue of material fact as to the defendants' liability for negligence, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
The affidavit of Dillard reads as follows:
Johnson, in his affidavit, stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
"1. I am Ronald Renae Johnson of... Moulton, Alabama, I am twenty-six (26) years of age and an employee of Saginaw Steering Gear of Decatur, Alabama.
After reviewing the affidavits of Dillard and Johnson, we conclude that no triable issue is presented. Although neither affidavit disputes the defendants' assertions that the police vehicles involved in the pursuit of Lindsey were flashing blue lights and sounding sirens, Dillard's affidavit does indicate that the police vehicles approached the intersection of Sixth Avenue, S.E., and Fourteenth Street, S.E., Decatur, at an extremely high rate of speed. Even so, neither affidavit tends to show that any of the police vehicles entered the intersection and caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. It appears undisputed that none of the police vehicles collided with the plaintiffs' vehicle. These affidavits do tend to prove that the police vehicles exceeded the maximum speed limit during the pursuit; however, that matter is not disputed by the defendants. The mere fact that a police officer exceeds the maximum speed limit during a pursuit, such as the one in the present case, does not present a genuine issue of material fact as to the liability of that officer for negligence. See § 32-5A-7, supra, and Madison v. Weldon, 446 So. 2d 21 (Ala.1984). There can be little doubt that the high speed pursuit by the police officers contributed to Lindsey's reckless driving in this case. However, the rule regarding the conduct of a police officer in pursuit of an escaping offender is succinctly stated in Madison:
"`The rule governing the conduct of [a] police [officer] in pursuit of an escaping offender is that he must operate his car with due care and, in doing so, he is not responsible for the acts of the offender. Although pursuit may contribute to the reckless driving of the pursued, the officer is not obliged to allow him to escape.'" (Emphasis added.)
446 So. 2d  at 28, quoting City of Miami v. Horne, 198 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1967).
Lindsey's actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries, not the actions of Officers Barnes, Fields, and Milford; therefore, the trial court properly granted the summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
[1]  See, also, Doran v. City of Decatur, supra.