Court Opinion

ID: 9688493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:51:57.212466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:39.671313
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Justice
(dissenting).
My reasons for dissenting are the same as those appearing in my dissent in Jackson v. City of Florence, 294 Ala. 592, 320 So.2d 68. That case did away with governmental immunity of a city in the performance of a governmental function. This case does the same insofar as counties are concerned. These decisions have changed the law that has been in effect in Alabama for over 100 years.
Ordinarily, taxpayers expect that taxes and governmental costs will originate in the Legislature, or their city and county governing bodies. But this court has stepped in, changed a long-existing policy, and abolished governmental immunity for towns, cities and counties while engaged in a governmental function. These decisions will probably extract more money from the pockets of taxpayers in Alabama, or diminish more services each receives, than any act raising new taxes which may be passed by the Legislature now in session.
The Legislature can restore that which has been taken away in these judicial decisions if it sees fit to do so. The taxpayers’ present remedy is with the legislative branch of government.
I would affirm the action of the trial court because I remain of the opinion that the question of governmental immunity in the performance of a governmental function is a legislative rather than a judicial matter, especially in view of the fact that most legislation affecting counties, cities and towns passed in the past 100 years has *621been enacted with the idea that that doctrine would continue to prevail.
I respectfully dissent.
MADDOX, J., concurs.