Title: Parr v. City of Birmingham
Citation: 85 So. 2d 888
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 22, 1955

85 So. 2d 888 (1955)
Ronnie PARR, pro aml,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
6 Div. 948.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 22, 1955.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1956.
Hogan &amp; Callaway, Birmingham, for appellant.
W. L. Clark, Birmingham, for appellee.
MERRILL, Justice.
Appellant, a minor suing by next friend, sought damages against the City of Birmingham for injuries sustained when a wrought iron plaque fell on and broke his leg while he was in the Birmingham Art Museum which is located in the City Hall. The demurrer to appellant's complaint was sustained; he took an involuntary non suit because of the adverse ruling of the court and has appealed.
The real question before us is whether the operation of the museum by the City of Birmingham is a corporate act or an act in the exercise of a governmental function.
The statute authorizing museums is Code 1940, Title 37, Sec. 511, which reads:
Pursuant to this statute the Commission of City of Birmingham adopted Ordinance No. 783-F in August 1950 which provided for the creation of a Museum Board of the City of Birmingham to manage and operate a museum in space provided in the City Hall, but "The Board shall not have the right to sue or be sued, and all property and property interests accruing to it shall *889 be vested in and held for the City". Section 3 of the Ordinance reads:
In our recent case of City of Bay Minette v. Quinley, Ala., 82 So. 2d 192, 194, we discussed corporate acts and governmental functions of a municipality and although many other pertinent statements could be used, we quote the following where the court said:
It is clear to us that the operation of the Museum is not for the special benefit or profit of the corporate entity, but is for the common good of all and is in "the exercise of the sovereign power for the benefit *890 of all citizens," and was therefore, in the exercise of a governmental function. See also Williams v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 19, 121 So. 14, and authorities therein cited where it was held that the operation of a golf course was a public governmental function and the city was immune from tort liability with respect to such function, even though reasonable fees were charged for the use of the course by the public.
It follows that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.