Opinion ID: 1657371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Claims Against the City of Huntsville

Text: The City of Huntsville's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted was properly granted. This Court determined in Neighbors v. City of Birmingham, 384 So.2d 113 (Ala.1980), that a malicious prosecution action cannot lie against a municipality, because a municipality cannot be deemed to act with malice. In Boyette v. City of Mobile, 442 So.2d 61 (Ala.1983), this court held that notwithstanding Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190, which imposes municipal liability for injuries suffered through neglect, carelessness or unskillfulness of some agent, officer or employee of the municipality engaged in work therefor and while acting in the line of his duty, a municipality has immunity from actions alleging unlawful arrest and imprisonment based on negligence on the part of city employees acting within the scope of their employment. Although Franklin concedes that the malicious prosecution claim must fail as a matter of law, he contends, relying on Gore v. City of Hoover, 559 So.2d 163 (Ala. 1990), that his false arrest claim is premised on negligence and was not subject to the motion to dismiss. Franklin's contention has merit. In Gore the plaintiff was mistakenly arrested under a warrant for presenting a worthless check drawn on insufficient funds. This court determined that the City could not be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the alleged negligence of the magistrate in issuing an arrest warrant, where the magistrate was protected by judicial immunity while engaging in a judicial function of issuing warrants. This court recognizes that some confusion may exist because of some language contained in Brooks v. City of Birmingham, 584 So.2d 451 (Ala.1991). Specifically in Brooks this court stated: In Boyette v. City of Mobile, 442 So.2d 61 (Ala.1983), we held that, pursuant to § 11-47-190, a municipality has immunity from actions alleging unlawful arrest and false imprisonment based on negligence on the part of city employees while acting within the scope of their employment. Id. Thus, an individual may not maintain an action for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment against a municipality based upon the alleged negligence of city employees acting within the scope of their employment. Id. We have also held that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 11-47-190 for malicious prosecution because of the conduct of its police officers or employees or members of its legal department in a wrongful arrest and prosecution undertaken in their official capacity, because a corporate entity, a municipality, cannot entertain a malicious intent. Neighbors v. City of Birmingham, 384 So.2d 113 (Ala.1980). See, also, Gore v. City of Hoover, 559 So.2d 163 (Ala.1990); Boyette v. City of Mobile, supra; Bahakel v. City of Birmingham, 427 So.2d 143 (Ala.1983); and McCarter v. City of Florence, 216 Ala. 72, 112 So. 335 (1927). Section 11-47-190 provides for an action against a municipality for the `neglect, carelessness or unskillfulness' of its agents, not for their intentional torts. Gore v. City of Hoover, supra. Thus, based on this rationale, the summary judgment on the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims was proper.  As to the false arrest claim, we acknowledge that the above-stated rationale does not strictly apply to an action for false arrest that is premised upon a negligence claim. Id. However, under the facts of the instant case, an action does not lie for false arrest.... 584 So.2d at 453-54 (emphasis added). [1] Brooks suggests that a cause of action against a municipality for false arrest predicated on negligence is proper, even though Brooks was not decided on this issue. The Brooks Court held that because there was probable cause for the arrest, there was no neglect, carelessness or unskillfulness. Likewise, as noted above, Gore is distinguishable. This Court held in Gore that under principles of vicarious responsibility, where the employee (the magistrate) had immunity, the municipality likewise had immunity. While this court in Gore did not address circumstances where the employee may not have immunity, the majority in Gore specifically recognized that the holding of Neighbors may have been extended, without this Court's explicitly saying so, to provide municipalities immunity from actions premised on neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness, by Bahakel v. City of Birmingham, 427 So.2d 143 (Ala.1983). The majority in Gore stated:  Bahakel v. City of Birmingham, 427 So.2d 143 (Ala.1983), involved a very similar action for unlawful arrest against a municipality, a municipal magistrate, and the affiant who procured the plaintiff's arrest warrant (the claim against the affiant was not at issue on the appeal). The lead opinion began, `This appeal involves an action for an unlawful arrest,' 427 So.2d at 144, but then disposed of the claim against the city with the following rationale: `Whether plaintiff can maintain a negligence-based action for an unlawful arrest and thereby circumvent the principle that a municipality is not liable for false arrests or malicious prosecutions is a question we need not answer. Plaintiff's argument, in effect, asserts a claim for recovery under a theory that can only be called negligent prosecution. That theory does not present a cognizable tort claim.' . . . . . . . . The rationale of Neighbors appears to have been that an action will not lie against a municipality for malicious prosecution because such an action requires proof of malice, and § 11-47-90 provides for an action against a municipality for the `neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness' of its agents, not for their intentional torts: `To construe that language to include an action for malicious prosecution would be to expand the words beyond their normal meaning. This we decline to do.' 384 So.2d at 114. That rationale does not strictly apply to an action for false arrest, at least not one premised on negligence. Thus, Bahakel v. City of Birmingham may have extended the holding of Neighbors without doing so explicitly. Nevertheless, an action for false arrest does not lie under the facts of this case .... 559 So.2d at 164-65 (emphasis added). In order to resolve this conflict, it is necessary to examine the language in Neighbors and its discussion of Jackson v. City of Florence . The issue of a city's liability for malicious prosecution was discussed and settled in the 1927 case of McCarter v. City of Florence, 216 Ala. 72, 112 So. 335, which held that a municipality is not responsible for the acts of its officers, agents, or servants in making false arrests or for instituting a malicious prosecution.... . . . . Appellant insists that McCarter v. City of Florence, supra, was overruled by this Court's decision in Jackson v. City of Florence, 294 Ala. 592, 320 So.2d 68 (1975), a decision which he contends absolutely abolished governmental immunity in Alabama. We do not agree. Jackson abolished the judicial doctrine of municipal immunity, but recognized `... the authority of the legislature to enter the entire field, and further [recognized] its superior position to provide with proper legislation any limitations or protections it deems necessary....' 294 Ala. 592, at 600, 320 So.2d 68, at 75. In so holding, Jackson gave effect to former Tit. 37, § 502 [1940 Code of Alabama], now Code 1975, § 11-47-190, a legislative effort to impose liability on municipalities for the negligence of their employees, which had been thwarted by the interpretation placed on it by the courts.... ... Section 11-47-190 remains the pertinent legislative enactment. It limits the liability of municipalities to injuries suffered through `neglect, carelessness or unskillfulness.' To construe that language to include an action for malicious prosecution would be to expand the words beyond their normal meaning. This we decline to do. Neighbors, 384 So.2d at 113-14. This court therefore affirms the holding of Neighbors v. City of Birmingham, 384 So.2d 113 (Ala.1980)that a municipality is immune from a malicious prosecution claim but rejects an extension of Neighbors to provide immunity to claims of false arrest and imprisonment brought under Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190. Any language to the contrary contained in Bahakel v. City of Birmingham, 427 So.2d 143 (Ala.1983); Boyette v. City of Mobile, 442 So.2d 61 (Ala.1983); Gore v. City of Hoover, 559 So.2d 163 (Ala.1990); and Brooks v. City of Birmingham, 584 So.2d 451 (Ala.1991), is overruled. In reaching this result, we are not altering or modifying any existing cause of action. We merely state that where a plaintiff alleges a factual pattern that demonstrates neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190. Whether the plaintiff's allegations state a cause of action and whether the plaintiff has presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact can be evaluated by the trial court upon proper motion. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the malicious prosecution claim against the city; however, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the claims alleging false arrest and false imprisonment is reversed. Franklin also contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the city on count III, alleging assault and battery. This Court, in City of Birmingham v. Thompson, 404 So.2d 589, 592 (Ala.1981), said: This case was submitted to the jury on the theory that an agent of the City of Birmingham had used `excessive force' upon the plaintiff.... That is the equivalent of asserting an assault and battery not measured or patterned for the circumstances, or an unskilled response.... In either case a lack of response measured by the circumstances could have been due to his `unskillfulness' as an officer confronted by either of those circumstances. As `unskillful' is used in § 11-47-190, it means `lacking in skill or proficiency.' [Citations omitted.] An assault and battery committed under either circumstance, because `unskilled,' would be a negligent assault and battery because it would fall below that response which a skilled or proficient officer would exercise in similar circumstances. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted only if Franklin presented no substantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether probable cause existed to make a lawful arrest or as to whether the force used was excessive. Ala.Code 1975, § 15-10-3(a)(1), provides in pertinent part that an officer may arrest a person, without a warrant, for [a]ny public offense committed or breach of the peace threatened in his presence. In making the arrest, a police officer may use reasonable force and may be held liable only if more force is used than is necessary to effectuate the arrest. See Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-3-27; and Livingston v. Browder, 51 Ala.App. 366, 285 So.2d 923 (1973). However before any force can be used in making an arrest, probable cause must exist to make a lawful arrest. There are disputed facts as to whether Franklin's conduct constituted probable cause for him to be arrested for disorderly conduct. Officer Citrano testified that Franklin cursed him and was speaking in a loud voice and was attracting the attention of the other spectators in the stands. Franklin denies cursing the officer or otherwise acting in a manner constituting disorderly conduct. This unresolved dispute presents a jury question. The summary judgment for the city on the assault and battery claim was therefore improper. It is undisputed that Franklin did not comply with the officer's request to go into the bleachers. By Franklin's own account he was asked three to four times (C.R. II-26) to go into the bleachers. However, the evidence is in conflict as to whether Franklin was in an area that was restricted and subject to a lawful order to move. Franklin testified that for previous games this area had been chained off, but that it was not restricted when he arrived. The burden of establishing that Franklin was in an area in which he was subject to a lawful order to move was on the city. Therefore, there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether Franklin was standing in a restricted area and therefore was subject to a lawful order to move.