Court Opinion

ID: 9934981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:55:07.711965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:53.352021
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result as to Part 2, "Direct Liability of the City for the Acts or Omissions of the Fire Department," and Part 3, "Vicarious Liability of the City for the Acts or Omissions of the Firefighters." I concur fully in Part 4, "Vicarious Liability of the City for the Act of the Policeman," and Part 5, "Claim of the City to Substantive Immunity from Suit for the Act of the Policeman." I therefore concur in the judgment.
I write specially with reference to Part 4. The day may well come when the restatement in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392
(Ala. 2000), should be modified so as to extend the reference in paragraph (4) dealing with "exercising of judgment in the enforcement of criminal laws", 792 So.2d at 405 (emphasis added), to include an additional phrase dealing with "discharge of law-enforcement duties." However, I agree with the main opinion that that issue at this stage of the proceedings in the instant case is not yet ripe for determination.