Court Opinion

ID: 9935170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:55:27.65884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:08.850495
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent and refer the reader to my views expressed in my dissent in Bell v. Chisom, 421 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1982). I would hold that the party seeking recovery of one who has a defense based upon the immunity doctrine must negate in the complaint the cloak of immunity that would be presumed to exist with regard to state employees. Further, I would hold that a state employee engaged in a discretionary function should be sued in a representative capacity, thus causing liability for the payment of any judgment to rest upon the agency or department of the state for which the individual is performing the services out of which the liability to the plaintiff arose.