In Walker County, a deputy sheriff (the defendant) and his wife lived across the street from a couple (the plaintiffs) who owned a dog, a pit bull and rottweiler mix. The couple's residence was within 30 feet of elementary school. One morning, while the deputy was on duty with the sheriff's department, he received a telephone call telling him that his wife and their dog had been attacked in front of the plaintiffs' house. The deputy drove to his house to check on his wife and dog, and then assisted a police officer from the City of Cordova in locating and restraining the dog that had attacked his wife and dog.
After finding a dog—agitated and unrestrained—in the plaintiffs' yard that matched his wife's description of the dog that had attacked her, the deputy and the police officer approached, the plaintiffs' house to talk to the couple about the dog. Growling and showing his teeth, the dog galloped toward the two law-enforcement officers and leaped at the deputy's neck. The deputy shot at the dog three times before it ceased its attack. (Although the record is not clear, at least one shot hit the dog.)
In November 2004, the plaintiffs sued the deputy, alleging negligence, wantonness, tort of outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to person, and trespass on property. The deputy moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to state immunity because he was acting within the line and scope of his employment as a Walker County deputy sheriff. The Walker County Circuit Court denied the motion. The deputy then appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.
The supreme court reversed the circuit court, pointing out Alabama law is clear that a deputy sheriff acting within the line and scope of his employment is entitled to state immunity. Once the deputy had made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to state immunity, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to show that he was not. The only evidence offered was that incident occurred within the police jurisdiction of the City of Cordova. But the plaintiffs never cited any legal authority that said a deputy sheriff cannot act in concert with a city police officer within a city's police jurisdiction. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs had never offered any evidence that the deputy's actions were willful, malicious, or exceeded the scope of his authority.
Items on this web page are general in nature. They cannot—and should not—replace consultation with a competent legal professional. Nothing on this web page should be considered rendering legal advice.
Return to top.
Return to Legal Developments.
Attorneys who practice in the
area of municipal liability.
