Ex parte Escambia County Commission and Steven Dickey, Larry White, Brandon Smith, Karean L. Reynolds, and Raymond Wiggins, individually and in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the Escambia County Commission, No. SC-2025-0784, 2026 WL 2451252 (Ala. Aug. 21, 2026). The Court (Shaw, J., and Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Parker, JJ., concur) grants the petition for writ of mandamus and directs the Escambia Circuit Court to grant the motion to dismiss on immunity grounds.
Grady L. Floyd, Sr. passed away on May 31, 2023, and Dr. J. Daniel Raulerson, Escambia County Medical Examiner, was to transport Mr. Floyd’s remains from the morgue to Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. Dr. Raulerson failed to properly preserve Mr. Floyd’s remains prior to leaving town, and Mr. Floyd’s remains were too decomposed for autopsy and embalming when he returned on June 6, 2023. Dr. Raulerson died before Plaintiffs filed their original complaint alleging Dr. Raulerson deprived them of the opportunity to know the cause of Mr. Floyd’s untimely death, the opportunity to have to an open casket funeral, and for authorizing cremation of Mr. Floyd’s remains without permission. Id. at *1. The family sued members of the Escambia County Commission individually and in their official capacities, alleging each was vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. Raulerson. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint which did not materially alter any claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint based on State-agent immunity and statutory immunity pursuant to Ala. Code § 45-27-60.11, which provides immunity to the Escambia County Medical Examiner. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS) as a defendant and to add a declaratory-judgment count arguing each defendant owed an affirmative duty to “perform a ministerial function of the proper preservation of [Grady’s remains.].” Id. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, and defendants filed to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint based on legislative immunity, State immunity, State-agent immunity, and immunity pursuant to Ala. Code § 45-27-60.11. Id. at *2. ADFS separately filed a motion to dismiss based largely on State immunity.
The Court holds Dr. Raulerson was immune from civil liability pursuant to Ala. Code § 45-27-60.11, and, therefore, the county commissioners were not vicariously liable for his actions. “Thus, if a putative servant is not liable, either because he is innocent or because he is immune, no liability exists to be visited upon the putative master under the rule of respondeat superior.” Wheeler v. George, 39 So. 3d 1061, 1090 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Hollis v. City of Brighton, 885 So. 2d 135, 141-42 (Ala. 2004). The declaratory-judgment claim was also due to be dismissed based on the same reasoning. Id. at *3.