Opinion ID: 7638574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims asserted against Riviera Utilities

Text: Riviera Utilities argues that, as a municipal utility, it is a government  entity entitled to substantive immunity. Substantive immunity shields a municipality from liability for the negligent acts of its employees 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 [a municipality's] legitimate efforts to provide such public services. Rich v. City of Mobile , 410 So.2d 385 , 387 (Ala. 1982). The substantive-immunity rule is given effect in the context of those public service activities of governmental entities ... so laden with the public interest as to outweigh the incidental duty to individual citizens. Id . at 387-88 . Riviera Utilities contends that because it provides utility services to the public, the substantive-immunity rule applies here. Moreover, it argues, its participation in the 811 ticket program is a benefit to itself and to the public. The Hilburns argue that Riviera Utilities has not demonstrated that it is entitled to substantive immunity. [T]he lack of anything other than an incidental duty to a particular individual prevents the municipality from being liable from damages, because a breach of a duty owed to the general public will not form the basis for a negligence claim by an individual citizen. Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. v. City of Atmore , 79 So.3d 646 , 652 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). In this case, the Hilburns argue, Riviera Utilities did not owe a duty to the general public, but to the employees of Gulf Equipment Corporation who were working on the bridge-repair project in close proximity to Riviera Utilities' overhead power lines. According to the Hilburns, the safety measures they allege Riviera Utilities should have implemented would not have been directed toward the general public, but only toward the Gulf Equipment employees working on the bridge-repair project. We conclude that, because the Hilburns' claims against Riviera Utilities did not involve actions that took place within the city limits of Foley, Riviera Utilities clearly is not entitled to substantive immunity. The cases cited by Riviera Utilities are distinguishable. See, e.g., Rich v. City of Mobile , in which this Court found the municipality immune from claims alleging negligent inspection by city plumbing inspectors checking an individual residence in the city for compliance with the city's plumbing code, and Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. v. City of Atmore , 79 So.3d 646 , 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), in which the Court of Civil Appeals held that enactment of a sign ordinance for the benefit of the citizens of the municipality is a municipal function giving rise to substantive immunity and that an employee enforcing the ordinance shares in that immunity, following Tutwiler Drug Co. v. City of Birmingham , 418 So.2d 102 , 105 (Ala. 1982). We note, however, that the unavailability of substantive immunity for Riviera Utilities does not foreclose the availability to it of any defense based upon § 11-93-2, Ala. Code 1975, the statutory cap on damages afforded a governmental entity. This defense has been asserted by Riviera Utilities in the trial court and will be addressed in further proceedings in the trial court. Because Riviera Utilities is not entitled to a summary judgment on the basis of substantive immunity, the trial court properly denied its motion for a summary judgment on this basis.