Ex parte City of Orange Beach, [Ms. SC-2024-0526, Apr. 4, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (McCool, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, and Cook, JJ., concur; Mitchell, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result; Shaw and Bryan, JJ., concur in the result) issues a writ of mandamus to the Baldwin Circuit Court directing dismissal of wrongful death claims against the City of Orange Beach alleging that the City failed to adequately inspect construction activities in Cypress Village subdivision, resulting in construction vehicles blocking roads which delayed arrival of emergency medical personnel to the decedent, Patrick Fahrmann’s, home where he had suffered a heart attack. Ms. *3.
Pursuant to § 11-47-190 Ala. Code, 1975, “municipalities are generally chargeable with the negligence of their employees acting within the line and scope of their employment. Payne v. Shelby Cnty. Comm’n, 12 So. 3d 71, 77 (Ala. Civ. P. 2008).” Ms. **9-10. However, in Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So. 2d 385 (Ala. 1982), the Court recognized substantive municipal immunity where claims are based on breach of duties owed to the public at large. Ms. **8-9.
Plaintiff urges the Court to overrule Rich. Ms. *18. First, the Court declines to overrule Rich. The Court notes that despite amending § 11-47-190 after Rich was decided, the Legislature has taken no steps to abolish or limit substantive immunity. Ms. *22. In addition, the Court reasons that substantive immunity has become “fixed in the fabric of the law” and that “sound public-policy reasons” weigh in favor of leaving it in place. Ms. **19, 21-22.
Second, the Court finds that substantive immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claim against the City for negligent failure to ensure that construction adhered to parking requirements. The Court determines that Plaintiff’s claims result from alleged breach of the City’s duty to the public at large rather than to any individual property owners and that substantive immunity therefore applies. Ms. *31-32.