Opinion ID: 1925512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligence of Deputies Turner and Davis

Text: Wright argues that the summary judgment for Turner and Davis was improper as to his negligence claims, because, he says, Turner and Davis do not have sovereign immunity and the evidence against them would support a jury's finding that Turner and Davis breached a duty of care to Mrs. Wright by failing to arrest Townley before he left the parking lot of the Booby Trap Lounge. We must first determine whether Turner and Davis are entitled to sovereign immunity. In Oliver v. Townsend, 534 So.2d 1038 (Ala.1988), we held that a sheriff is an employee of the state and, as such, is immune from suit, in his official capacity, for negligent performance of his statutory duties. See Ala. Const., art. 1, § 14. In Hereford v. Jefferson County, 586 So.2d 209 (Ala.1991), we held that deputy sheriffs are immune from suit to the same extent as sheriffs. In Hereford, we relied upon Mosely v. Kennedy, 245 Ala. 448, 450, 17 So.2d 536, 537 (1944), stating: In general, the acts of the deputy sheriff are the acts of the sheriff. The deputy sheriff is the alter ego of the sheriff. We also relied upon Carr v. City of Florence, Alabama, 916 F.2d 1521, 1526 (11th Cir.1990), stating: [Under Alabama law, a] deputy is legally an extension of the sheriff. If the deputy's acts are generally considered the acts of the sheriff, it is logical that those acts should enjoy the same immunity covering the sheriff's own acts. See also White v. Birchfield, 582 So.2d 1085 (Ala.1991). In this case, Wright alleged that Turner and Davis were negligent in failing to arrest Townley, because, he says, they knew or should have known that Townley was intoxicated and, he says, they had an opportunity to restrain him before he drove out of the club's parking lot. Because a sheriff would have immunity in a suit alleging negligent failure to perform an arrest, we conclude that Turner and Davis are entitled to immunity. The summary judgment for Turner and Davis was proper on the ground that they have immunity; thus, we find no need to address the sufficiency of Wright's evidence of negligence against Turner and Davis.