Opinion ID: 2545615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Thornton

Text: The Volunteer Service Act, § 6-5-336, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: (d) Any volunteer shall be immune from civil liability in any action on the basis of any act or omission of a volunteer resulting in damage or injury if: (1) The volunteer was acting in good faith and within the scope of such volunteer's official functions and duties for a nonprofit organization, a nonprofit corporation, hospital, or a governmental entity; and (2) The damage or injury was not caused by willful or wanton misconduct by such volunteer. When the legislature passed the Volunteer Service Act, it declared in § 6-5-336(b): (1) The willingness of volunteers to offer their services has been increasingly deterred by a perception that they put personal assets at risk in the event of tort actions seeking damages arising from their activities as volunteers; (2) The contributions of programs, activities, and services to communities is diminished and worthwhile programs, activities, and services are deterred by the unwillingness of volunteers to serve either as volunteers or as officers, directors, or trustees of nonprofit public and private organizations; (3) The provisions of this section are intended to encourage volunteers to contribute their services for the good of their communities and at the same time provide a reasonable basis for redress of claims which may arise relating to those services. It is undisputed that Thornton served as an unpaid volunteer member of the IDB. He was employed full-time in his own insurance business, and he served as the chairman of the IDB on a voluntary part-time basis. The IDB is a governmental entity as defined in the Volunteer Service Act, § 6-5-336(c)(1). See also Harris v. Ethics Comm'n, 585 So.2d 93, 95 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), in which the Court of Civil Appeals quoted with approval a statement from a trial court's order stating that industrial development boards clearly reflect attributes and characteristics of a governmental entity. Accordingly, Thornton is a volunteer under the Volunteer Service Act and is entitled to immunity so long as his actions or inactions were not wanton or willful. Thornton and the IDB had a limited role in acquiring property for Hyundai's plant site. Even though Thornton was the person who executed on behalf of the IDB the options to purchase the property owned by Southdale and Wheeler/Phillips, he never met with the landowners nor was he involved in the decisions concerning what property should be acquired or the price that should be paid for the property. Thornton had no knowledge of and was not present at the meeting held on the evening of March 28. He had no knowledge of and was not present at the meeting between then Mayor Bright and Shelton when Bright executed on behalf of the City the option to purchase Shelton's property. The IDB never held an option on or title to Shelton's property. Thornton was not involved in the actual purchase of the property. Thornton did not learn of Shelton's identity, the price paid for her property, or that Hyundai had acquired the Shelton property until many months after the fact, long after Southdale and Wheeler/Phillips had sold their property. We conclude that Southdale and Wheeler/Phillips have not presented any evidence indicating that any actions taken by Thornton, either individually or in his capacity as the chairman of the IDB, were wanton or willful. Therefore, Thornton is entitled to immunity pursuant to the Volunteer Service Act, and the summary judgment in his favor is due to be affirmed on this alternative ground.