Title: City of Montgomery v. Robinson
Citation: 441 So. 2d 857
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 23, 1983

441 So. 2d 857 (1983)
CITY OF MONTGOMERY and Emory Folmar
v.
Quinton ROBINSON, et al.
81-1016.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 23, 1983.
Rehearing Denied November 23, 1983.
Jack Crenshaw and George B. Azar of Azar, Campbell &amp; Azar and H. Al Scott, for appellants.
Howard A. Mandell of Mandell &amp; Boyd, Montgomery, for appellees.
BEATTY, Justice.
This is an appeal by the defendants, City of Montgomery and Emory Folmar, from a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We affirm.
Plaintiff Robinson suffered a heart attack on June 28, 1980, while on duty as a fireman employed by the City of Montgomery. Following hospitalization and treatment, Robinson's physicians notified the City that Robinson was "100% permanently disabled as a firefighter." Thereafter Robinson requested of the City benefits under Act No. 26, Acts of 1962, commonly referred to as the "Trinity Act," and also under Act No. 565, Acts of 1975. Robinson's request was denied by the City of Montgomery on the ground that the "Trinity Act" was repealed by Act No. 565. Robinson then initiated this action, asking the trial court to declare that he was entitled to benefits under both Acts, and for other relief.
Defendants filed their answer, raising a number of defenses, including an attack upon the constitutionality of Act No. 26, and averring that Act No. 26 was repealed by the later passage of Act No. 565.
Following a hearing, the trial court found that the benefits granted by Act No. 565 were supplemental to those granted by Act No. 26, and that Robinson was entitled to receive benefits under both enactments. This appeal followed.
Defendants have raised three issues for our consideration, viz.:
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the benefits afforded by Act *858 No. 565 were supplemental to those benefits available under Act No. 26.
2. Whether or not Section 3 of Act No. 565 repealed by implication the exclusivity provisions of both Act No. 26 and those contained in Title 26, §§ 271 and 272, Alabama Code of 1940 (Recomp.1958).
3. Whether or not Act No. 565 violates Section 45 of the Constitution of 1901.
All of these issues necessitate a review of the provisions of the terms of the legislative acts in question.
Act No. 26, the "Trinity Act," derives its origin from a fire which occurred at Montgomery in 1951. Three firemen lost their lives while fighting a fire at Trinity Presbyterian Church. At that time there were no laws under which a City of Montgomery employee could be compensated due to work-related injury. In response to this situation the Alabama Legislature enacted Act No. 233, Acts of 1951. This Act was a general act of local application with a population bracket of 57,000 to 127,000. It applied to cities within that population classification and provided that employees of such cities totally disabled in the performance of duty should receive a monthly benefit equal to one-half of their base monthly compensation at the time of the injury for the time such disability continued. It further provided that the city personnel board could order that such an employee be paid his regular compensation for a period not exceeding six months. Benefits were accorded the widow of a city employee who was killed or who died as a result of injury sustained in the line of duty, and benefits were also extended to minor children. This Act also contained an exclusivity clause:
In 1962 the legislature enacted Act No. 26 which, while containing the same coverage, benefits and exclusivity clause, amended the population classification of Act No. 233 by raising it to apply to city populations from 100,000 to 200,000.
Later, in 1975, the legislature enacted Act No. 565, a general act:
Thus, under the "Trinity Act," a covered totally disabled municipal employee would receive a monthly payment equal to one-half of his monthly compensation for as long as that disability lasted. On the other hand, under Act No. 565 the employees would be entitled to "the actual cost of reasonably necessary medical and surgical treatment and attention, physical rehabilitation, medicine, medical and surgical supplies," Code of 1975, § 25-5-77, and a certain percentage of his average weekly earnings received at the time of the injury, over a period of time, subject to certain maximum and minimum amounts. Code of 1975, § 25-5-57. According to the testimony of plaintiff Robinson, then thirty-four years of age, should he have a normal life span, he would receive approximately $200,000.00 under the "Trinity Act." Under Act No. 565, however, he would receive a maximum of approximately $40,000.00 regardless of his life span.
To summarize, by its terms the local act, No. 26, makes its benefits exclusive. The general act, No. 565, placed covered city employees under the Workmen's Compensation Law, but made its provisions "supplemental" and mandated that Act No. 565 "shall not be construed to repeal any laws not directly inconsistent herewith."
The defendants argue that Act No. 565 made the entire Workmen's Compensation Act applicable to Montgomery's employees, including the surrender of other rights and remedies. Title 26, §§ 271, 272, Alabama Code of 1940 (Recomp.1958); Code of 1975, §§ 25-5-52, -53. According to the defendants, this general enactment necessarily repealed Act No. 26 and made the remedy of workmen's compensation the exclusive remedy for employees such as Robinson. Defendants cite in support the language of § 272, supra:
That provision of the workmen's compensation Act, unfortunately, does not alleviate the problem of ascertaining the legislature's intent when that body included Section 3 in Act No. 565. In other words, if Act No. 26 was to be repealed, why did the legislature not use language therein making Act No. 565 the "exclusive remedy" instead of stating that employees "shall have available to them all the rights and remedies provided under Workmen's Compensation Law"? Why did the legislature not add to that sentence "and shall be subject to the limitations of" or suitable limiting language? If such limiting language had been used, would there have been any purpose in stating that "[t]he provisions of this act are supplemental"?
In solving this dilemma, we are directed by the defendants to Conner v. State, 275 Ala. 230, 153 So. 2d 787 (1963), which concerned the question of repeal by implication. There this Court stated:
Although Act No. 565 applied only to municipalities having populations greater than 2,000, it also applied to employees of all counties and, therefore, was not solely based upon a population classification. For the purpose of applying the stated principle to this case, therefore, Act No. 565 is to be viewed as a general act. The question then presented is whether Act No. 565 repealed Act No. 26. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (Sands 4th ed.) § 23.15 at 245 furnishes guidance in resolving that question:
These principles find support in our decisions. See, e.g., Hawkins v. City of Birmingham, 239 Ala. 185, 194 So. 533 (1940); Ex parte Jones, 212 Ala. 259, 102 So. 234 (1924); Conner v. State, supra; Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 (1939).
The question, of course, ultimately is one of ascertaining the legislative intent from the language used. Champion v. McLean, 266 Ala. 103, 95 So. 2d 82 (1957).
Applying the cited decisions to the statutes in question, we conclude that the legislature, as it possessed the power to do, did make Act No. 565 supplement the benefits conferred by Act No. 26, and thus did not repeal the latter act so as to make the benefits of workmen's compensation exclusive. Indeed, the benefits of Act No. 26 could have been enlarged or supplemented by any device available to the legislature, such as amendment, or by a supplement provided by another enactment. The particular phrase on monthly benefits covered by Act No. 26 is only one part of and one form of benefit contained in the broader scope of Act No. 565, and we thus presume that the legislature considered and contemplated the general treatment of those benefits rather than to have specifically directed its attention to the subject matter of Act No. 26. Accordingly, Act No. 26 remains in effect as a qualification, i.e., a supplement, to the general scope of Act No. 565. Moreover, the benefits of Act No. 26 were not repealed by the later enactment of Act No. 565 because the legislative intent to do so was not unequivocally expressed. Quite the contrary, the legislature clearly made the benefits conferred by Act No. 565 "supplemental," and enjoined that the act's provisions "shall not be construed to repeal any laws not directly inconsistent herewith." The only laws directly inconsistent with the provisions of Act No. 565 are the provisions of exclusivity contained in Act No. 26 and §§ 271 and 272 of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Those later provisions do conflict irreconcilably with the terms of Act No. 565 and, therefore, must be considered as impliedly repealed. Although we have *861 recognized that repeal by implication is not favored, "[w]hen the provisions of two statutes are directly repugnant and cannot be reconciled, it must be presumed that the legislature intended an implied repeal, and the later statute prevails as the last expression of the legislative will." Fletcher v. Tuscaloosa Federal Savings &amp; Loan Association, 294 Ala. 173, 177, 314 So. 2d 51 (1975). We hold that the trial court did not err in deciding that the benefits of Act No. 565 supplemented those available under Act No. 26; nor did it err in finding that Section 3 of Act No. 565 repealed by implication the exclusivity provisions of Act No. 26 and §§ 271 and 272 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as they relate to those persons covered by Act No. 565.
Defendant's final issue concerns the compliance of the title of Act No. 565 with the requirements of Section 45 of the Constitution of 1901 which mandates that "[e]ach law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." Specifically, defendants argue that the title to Act No. 565 did not give notice of Section 3 thereof, which effected a repeal by implication as we have discussed. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that this constitutional attack upon Act No. 565 was not made during trial and hence is foreclosed on appeal for not having been properly raised.
Of course, it is well established that where a constitutional question was not raised on trial it will not be considered an appeal. Cooper v. Green, 359 So. 2d 377 (Ala.1978); 2 Ala.Dig. Key 170(2). We respectfully observe, in addition, that the express mandate of § 45 has no effect upon a repeal by implication because of the very nature of an implied repeal. That issue was properly addressed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Geisen v. Heiderich, 104 Ill. 537 (1882), when that court considered a similar attack upon a statute under the Illinois constitutional provision almost identical to our own. That court resolved the question in this manner:
We have carefully considered the issues raised and the excellent briefs and arguments of counsel. The order of the trial court is due to be, and is, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.