Summary
granting discretionary function immunity to a sheriff's deputy on the basis of White v. Birchfield
Summary of this case from McMillian v. JohnsonOpinion
1910768.
August 21, 1992.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Shelby County, No. CV-88-241, D. Al Crowson, J.
Jack J. Hall and David L. McAlister of McDaniel, Hall, Conerly Lusk, Birmingham, for appellant.
Clarence L. McDorman of Yearout, Myers Traylor, P.C., Birmingham, and Frank C. Ellis, Jr., Columbiana, for appellees.
The summary judgments entered in favor of the defendants, Deputy Sheriff Lloyd Anderson and Shelby County, are affirmed. Deputy Anderson is entitled to substantive immunity (discretionary function immunity) under the facts presented. White v. Birchfield, 582 So.2d 1085 (Ala. 1991).
Further, we find the plaintiff's arguments as to negligent training, supervision, and entrustment on the part of Shelby County to be meritless. Pursuant to a local act, the Shelby County Commission has no authority over, and takes no part in, the training or supervising of deputy sheriffs in Shelby County. Act No. 37, 1971 Ala. Acts, 2d Spec. Session, 4170. We fail to discern a duty owed by Shelby County to the plaintiff. See, Maharry v. City of Gadsden, 587 So.2d 966, 968 (Ala. 1991); and Rutley v. Country Skillet Poultry Co., 549 So.2d 82 (Ala. 1989).
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.