Court Opinion

ID: 9934851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:54:49.901978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:42.783613
License: Public Domain

In support of the summary judgment entered in favor of Calhoun County, Judge Malcolm Street stated:
 "Any claim that the alleged low shoulder, lack of striping on the roadway or lack of warning signs on the roadway proximately caused the accident would be a product of pure supposition, speculation, conjecture or guess work."
I agree with Judge Street; therefore, I must respectfully disagree with the opinion.
The Calhoun County Commission did not raise the issue whether it had the capacity to be sued, or whether it was the proper party to be sued, Rule 9(a), Ala.R.Civ.P. Had the capacity of the Calhoun County Commission to be sued been raised, I believe it would have been a matter of defense.
The majority opinion, in footnote 1, states that the Calhoun County Commission "did not assert that it was not the proper party to be sued," citing Calvert v. Cullman County Commission,669 So.2d 119 (Ala. 1995), which incorrectly states that "the difference between naming [a] county as a defendant and naming its governing body as a defendant is a difference in nomenclature." 669 So.2d at 120.
See my dissenting views on this issue in Calvert,669 So.2d at 121. *Page 855