Title: Ziegler v. City of Millbrook

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

514 So. 2d 1275 (1987)
Elizabeth F. ZIEGLER
v.
CITY OF MILLBROOK.
85-1461.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 28, 1987.
Rehearing Denied October 2, 1987.
Stephen M. Langham, Prattville, for appellant.
Philip S. Gidiere, Jr., of Carpenter & Gidiere, Montgomery, for appellee.
BEATTY, Justice.
The plaintiff, Elizabeth Ziegler, appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant, City of Millbrook, in her action to recover damages for negligently or wantonly failing to provide fire protection. We reverse and remand.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether a municipality, under the doctrine of substantive immunity, is liable for negligence in failing to provide fire protection.[1]
In Williams v. City of Tuscumbia, 426 So. 2d 824 (Ala.1983), this Court reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant, City of Tuscumbia. In that case the plaintiff filed suit against the city, seeking to recover damages for its fire department's negligence in failing to immediately respond to a fire at his residence. The Court stated:
"`Cities and towns may maintain and operate a volunteer or paid fire department and may do all things necessary to secure efficient service....'
In City of Mobile v. Jackson, 474 So. 2d 644, 649 (Ala.1985), this Court refused to adopt the municipality's argument for substantive immunity:
"Next, the city cites Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So. 2d 385 (Ala.1982), to support its proposition that it is substantively immune from suit in this case. In Rich, homeowners sued the city, alleging that a building inspector negligently inspected, or negligently failed to inspect, sewer lines connecting plaintiffs' residence to the main system. Rich created a narrow exception to the rule of general liability for municipalities in situations in which the public policy considerations of a city's paramount responsibility to provide for the public safety, health, and general welfare outweighed the reasons for the imposition of liability on the municipality. This exception to the general rule of liability, however, is to be applied only in `those narrow areas of governmental activities essential to the well-being of the governed, where the imposition of liability can be reasonably calculated to materially thwart the City's legitimate efforts to provide such public services.' Rich, 410 So. 2d  at 387.
We find this case to be controlled by Williams v. Tuscumbia, supra, and it follows that no municipal immunity exists under the circumstances of this claim. Accordingly, *1277 the summary judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JONES, ALMON, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.
HOUSTON, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The Court first addressed the doctrine of substantive immunity in Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So. 2d 385 (Ala.1982). In that case the plaintiffs' residence was connected to and served by the sewer system of the City of Mobile. The elevation of the residence was lower than that of the sewer system; and, because an overflow trap had not been installed in the line leading to the residence, a sewer line back-up overflowed into the plaintiffs' home. The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Mobile, seeking damages for negligently failing to inspect or negligently inspecting the sewer lines connecting the plaintiffs' residence to the main system. The trial court dismissed the case. We affirmed, stating:
". . .
410 So. 2d  at 386-88.
Approximately a year after Rich, this Court, in Williams v. City of Tuscumbia, 426 So. 2d 824 (Ala.1983), reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant, City of Tuscumbia. In that case the plaintiff filed suit against the city to recover damages for its fire department's negligence in failing to immediately respond to a fire at his residence. The Court stated:
"`Cities and towns may maintain and operate a volunteer or paid fire department and may do all things necessary to secure efficient service....'
"`narrow areas of governmental activities essential to the well-being of the governed, where the imposition of liability can be reasonably calculated to materially thwart the City's legitimate efforts to provide such public services.'
426 So. 2d  at 826.
Thereafter in City of Mobile v. Jackson, 474 So. 2d 644 (Ala.1985), the Court affirmed a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the Jacksons, in a suit they brought against the City of Mobile seeking to recover for damages caused by the overflow of a drainage system that resulted in the flooding of their residence. The Court rejected the city's argument that it was substantively immune from liability:
"Next, the city cites Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So. 2d 385 (Ala.1982), to support its proposition that it is substantively immune from suit in this case. In Rich, homeowners sued the city, alleging that a building inspector negligently inspected, or negligently failed to inspect, sewer lines connecting plaintiffs' residence to the main system. Rich created a narrow exception to the rule of general liability for municipalities in situations in which the public policy considerations of a city's paramount responsibility to provide for the public safety, health, and general welfare outweighed the reasons for the imposition of liability on the municipality. This exception to the general rule of liability, however, is to be applied only in `those narrow areas of governmental activities essential to the well-being of the governed, where the imposition of liability can be reasonably calculated to materially thwart the City's legitimate efforts to provide such public services.' Rich, 410 So. 2d  at 387.
474 So. 2d  at 649.
Shortly thereafter, in Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala.1985), the Court affirmed a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant City of Mobile. In Calogrides the plaintiff attended a fireworks display at Ladd Memorial Stadium that was sponsored in part by the city. After the plaintiff arrived and as he was walking up the stadium ramp to find a seat, he was assaulted by a group of five or six teenage males. Eighty-two police officers were assigned to the stadium for the fireworks display. The plaintiff filed suit against the city, alleging that it negligently or wantonly failed to provide him with adequate police protection. Applying the doctrine of substantive immunity, the Court held that municipalities are not liable for their failure to provide police protection. In pertinent part, the Court stated:
475 So. 2d  at 561.
See also Garrett v. City of Mobile, 481 So. 2d 376 (Ala.1985) (companion case, following Calogrides, supra).
Clearly, the same public policy considerations that the Court found applicable in Rich, supra, Calogrides, supra, and Garrett, supra, are equally compelling in the present case. As Chief Justice Torbert noted in his dissent in Williams, fire protection is certainly one of those "narrow areas of governmental activities essential to the well-being of the governed, where the imposition of liability can be reasonably calculated to materially thwart [a city's] legitimate efforts to provide such public services." 426 So. 2d  at 826. Indeed, the evidence is undisputed in this case that the imposition of liability would threaten the defendant's efforts to provide adequate fire protection to all of its citizens.
Therefore, I would hold that the defendant is not liable for negligence in failing to provide fire protection. To the extent that Williams v. City of Tuscumbia, supra, is contrary, I would expressly overrule it. I can see no genuine issues of material fact; therefore, I think the decision of the trial court should be affirmed. Rule 56, Ala.R. Civ.P.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
[1]  Although the plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the defendant acted wantonly in failing to provide fire protection, there is no evidence in the record supporting that allegation.