Ex parte Darryl Riche, [Ms. SC-2025-0064, Sept. 19, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (McCool, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, and Lewis, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus to the Madison Circuit Court directing entry of a summary judgment in favor of Darryl Riche, an employee of the Huntsville City Schools Board of Education (“the Board”).
Riche is the stadium manager for Milton Frank Stadium, whose employment duties “require him to ‘inspect ... the property’ to determine whether ‘there [is] anything there that …, in [his] judgment, would be a hazard or a danger to someone [who] came on the property.’” Ms. *2. Riche noticed a crack in an asphalt walkway at the stadium and notified the appropriate person to arrange repair by third party vendor. Riche placed sand in the crack and an orange cone near it to minimize and warn of the trip hazard until it could be repaired. Ms. *3. McIntosh tripped and fell in the area of the crack in September 2021 before it was repaired. Ms. *4.
Riche moved for summary judgment based on state-agent immunity, and McIntosh argued that he was not immune because he had “‘acted beyond [his] authority, maliciously, fraudulently, willfully, in bad faith[,] or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.’” Ms. *5.
The Court first dismisses the official capacity claims against Riche and reiterates “[c]ity and county boards of education are agencies of the State and, as such, are entitled to sovereign immunity, i.e., they cannot be sued. Ex parte Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 270 So. 3d 1171, 1173 (Ala. 2018). As for the employees of those local boards of education, the Alabama Legislature has provided that the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits a plaintiff from seeking to recover damages from them in their official capacities.” Ms. *8, citing § 36-1-12, Ala. Code 1975.
Also, the Court holds the analysis in Louviere [v. Mobile County Board of Education, 670 So. 2d 873 (Ala. 1995)] and Bathgate [v. Mobile County Board of School Commissioners, 689 So. 2d 109 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)] apply to the individual capacity claims against Riche:
The evidence in those cases indicated that the defendants used their discretion in attempting to address dangerous conditions on school property, and this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals, respectively, held that the defendants were entitled to immunity for those discretionary acts. Similarly, the evidence in this case indicates that Riche used his discretion in attempting to address the crack in the walkway at Milton Frank Stadium, which is owned by the Board, and he is likewise entitled to immunity for his discretionary acts. Although Riche was not directly “supervising” students at that time, his acts were no less “supervisory” than covering a hole in the ground with a piece of plywood (Louviere) or attempting to manage a pigeon infestation (Bathgate), and, as noted, this Court has previously indicated that those acts constituted “the ‘supervising and educating of students.’”
Ms. **20-21, quoting Ex parte Mason, 146 So. 3d 9, 13 (Ala. 2013).
The Court rejects McIntosh’s argument that Riche was not immune because his alleged lack of follow-up constituted wantonness and reiterates that “under current Alabama law, State-agent immunity is not abrogated for negligent and wanton behavior; instead, immunity is withheld only upon a showing that the State agent acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, or beyond his or her authority. Ex parte City of Montgomery, 272 So. 3d 155, 168 (Ala. 2018).” Ms. *22, some internal quotation marks omitted.