Ex parte Darryl Riche PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Sharonda McIntosh v. Clarence Sutton, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Huntsville City Schools) (Madison Circuit Court: CV-23-901077).

Rel: September 19, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2025

_________________________

SC-2025-0064
_________________________

Ex parte Darryl Riche

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Sharonda McIntosh

v.

Clarence Sutton, in his individual capacity and in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Huntsville City Schools, et al.)

(Madison Circuit Court: CV-23-901077)

McCOOL, Justice.
SC-2025-0064

Darryl Riche, an employee of the Huntsville City Schools Board of

Education ("the Board"), has petitioned this Court for a writ of

mandamus, asking us to direct the Madison Circuit Court to enter a

summary judgment in his favor with respect to the claims that Sharonda

McIntosh has asserted against him.

Facts and Procedural History

Since 2015, Riche has served as the "stadium manager" for Milton

Frank Stadium, which is owned by the Board. The Board uses Milton

Frank Stadium to host school events such as football games, soccer

games, lacrosse games, and track-and-field competitions, and community

events such as food drives, car shows, and church services are held in the

stadium as well. According to Riche, he is a "one man operation" whose

duties include "just basic stuff" such as "ensur[ing] that … restrooms are

operable," "minor maintenance like changing lights," "unlocking the

facility" for events, and "turn[ing] on the cooling system for the locker

rooms." Riche's duties also 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."

If Riche determines that there is a dangerous condition that needs to be

2
SC-2025-0064

repaired, he contacts Elizabeth Arthur, who "handle[s] work orders for

repairs," and "text[s] her pictures of the area that need[s] repair." Arthur

then contacts an independent contractor, which performs the repair.

According to William Priest, the maintenance director for the Board,

"[t]here are no policies or procedures which specifically address the work

order system, or the reporting or correcting of problems or defects on

Board properties." Rather, "Board employees are expected to use good

judgment in deciding when a particular condition warrants a work

order." Regarding Riche specifically, Priest has explained that "Riche

has the discretion to use his best judgment to determine whether any

maintenance issues need to be addressed at Milton Frank Stadium."

Inside Milton Frank Stadium there is an asphalt walkway ("the

walkway") that lies between the bleachers and the area where the school

and community events are held, and attendees of the events use the

walkway to access the bleachers. At some point before September 2021,

Riche noticed that the walkway "had a … crack … that needed repair"

because it "could constitute a trip hazard for someone walking in that

area." Thus, Riche contacted Arthur and texted her pictures of the crack,

and Arthur created a work order to have the crack repaired. Riche then

3
SC-2025-0064

placed an orange cone near the crack to "mark it," which was his "general

practice," and he "put sand in [the crack] also to highlight that … the

area was breached" and to "warn people that were walking that the

breach was present." However, based on past experiences, Riche realized

that the orange cone might be "moved by the kids," and he also realized

that, "if the wind bl[ew], [the sand was] going to come out" of the crack.

In September 2021, McIntosh attended a football game at Milton

Frank Stadium. At that time, the crack in the walkway had not yet been

repaired, and, while walking to her seat in the bleachers, McIntosh

tripped in the crack and fell. According to McIntosh, as a result of her

fall she "suffered numerous injuries to her right foot and lower back" and

"will never be the same." It does not appear that the orange cone that

Riche had placed near the crack was still in place at that time, but it does

appear that there was sand in and around the crack at the time of

McIntosh's accident.1

1McIntosh returned to Milton Frank Stadium approximately two

weeks after her accident so that she could photograph the crack in the
walkway. Those photographs clearly show sand in and around the crack.

4
SC-2025-0064

McIntosh subsequently filed a complaint against Riche and four

other Board employees, in which she sought to recover damages based on

theories of negligence, wantonness, premises liability, negligent and/or

wanton undertaking, and "combining and concurring negligence."

McIntosh sued all the defendants in both their official and individual

capacities, and all the defendants filed motions for a summary judgment

in which they asserted the defenses of sovereign immunity and State-

agent immunity.2 Thereafter, McIntosh agreed that three of the

defendants were due to be dismissed from the case, and the circuit court

entered a summary judgment in favor of a fourth defendant, thus leaving

Riche as the only remaining defendant.

In her response to Riche's summary-judgment motion, McIntosh

argued that Riche was not entitled to sovereign immunity because, she

said, he had "acted beyond [his] authority, maliciously, fraudulently,

willfully, in bad faith[,] or under a mistaken interpretation of the law."

McIntosh also argued that Riche was not entitled to State-agent

immunity because, she said, his actions "did not fall within any category

2Richeasserted other arguments as well, but he has not raised
those arguments in his petition to this Court.
5
SC-2025-0064

[of State-agent immunity] enumerated in Ex parte Cranman[, 792 So. 2d

392 (Ala. 2000)]."

The circuit court held a hearing on Riche's summary-judgment

motion, but, if a transcript of that hearing exists, it has not been provided

to this Court. On December 19, 2024, the circuit court denied Riche's

motion, without stating its reasons. Riche then timely petitioned this

Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that he is entitled to a summary

judgment based on both sovereign immunity and State-agent immunity.

Standard of Review

"The standard of review applied to a petition seeking the
issuance of a writ of mandamus is well settled:

" 'Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary
writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear
legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2)
an imperative duty upon the respondent to
perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the
lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly
invoked jurisdiction of the court.'

"Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995)."

Ex parte Caremark Rx, LLC, 229 So. 3d 751, 756 (Ala. 2017).

"Although the denial of a motion for a summary
judgment is generally not appealable, this Court has held that
the denial of a motion for a summary judgment grounded on
a claim of immunity is reviewable by a petition for a writ of

6
SC-2025-0064

mandamus. Ex parte Kennedy, 992 So. 2d 1276, 1280 (Ala.
2008)."

Ex parte Ruffin, 160 So. 3d 750, 753 (Ala. 2014) (emphasis omitted).

Analysis

In his petition to this Court, Riche reasserts his argument that he

is entitled to immunity from the claims that McIntosh has asserted

against him. Specifically, Riche argues that he is entitled to sovereign

immunity with respect to the claims that McIntosh has asserted against

him in his official capacity and that he is entitled to State-agent

immunity with respect to the claims that she has asserted against him

in his individual capacity. We will address each argument in turn.

I. Official-Capacity Claims

Riche first argues that he is entitled to sovereign immunity with

respect to the claims that McIntosh has asserted against him in his

official capacity. In Ex parte Wilcox County Board of Education, 279 So.

3d 1135 (Ala. 2018), this Court stated:

"It is well settled law that the State is generally immune
from liability under § 14, Alabama Constitution of 1901. It is
also well settled that the State cannot be sued indirectly by
suing an officer in his or her official capacity.

" 'Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar
that deprives a court of subject-matter
7
SC-2025-0064

jurisdiction. Ex parte Dep't of Mental Health &
Mental Retardation, 837 So. 2d 808, 810-11 (Ala.
2002). The principle of sovereign immunity, set
forth in Article I, § 14, Alabama Constitution of
1901, is a wall that is "nearly impregnable."
Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., 835 So. 2d 137, 142
(Ala. 2002). The implications of sovereign
immunity are " 'not only that the state itself may
not be sued, but that this cannot be indirectly
accomplished by suing its officers or agents in
their official capacity, when a result favorable to
plaintiff would be directly to affect the financial
status of the state treasury.' " Patterson, 835 So.
2d at 142 (quoting State Docks Comm'n v. Barnes,
225 Ala. 403, 405, 143 So. 581, 582 (1932)).'

"Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health & Mental
Retardation, 937 So. 2d 1018, 1022-23 (Ala. 2006)."

279 So. 3d at 1140-41.

City 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. Section 36-1-12, Ala. Code 1975, states, in relevant

part:

8
SC-2025-0064

"(a) For the purposes of this section, 'education
employee' means a certified or noncertified employee of the
State Board of Education or any local board of education and
an employee of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind, the
Alabama School of Fine Arts, the Department of Youth
Services, or the Alabama School of Mathematics and Science.

"(b) An officer, employee, or agent of the state, including,
but not limited to, an education employee, acting in his or her
official capacity is immune from civil liability in any suit
pursuant to Article I, Section 14, of the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901."

(Emphasis added.)

There are six well-established "exceptions" to sovereign immunity

that allow a plaintiff to bring certain limited actions against State

employees (though not the State itself or its agencies). 3 See Ex parte

Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So. 3d at 1141-42 (listing the "exceptions"

to sovereign immunity). However, none of those "exceptions" allow a

plaintiff to bring a claim for damages against a State employee when the

claim is asserted against the employee in his or her official capacity. Id.

Rather, a plaintiff may bring a claim for damages against a State

3Although these actions are called "exceptions," they are not truly

exceptions to sovereign immunity but, instead, are simply not actions
against the State. Indeed, each of the six "exceptions" explicitly
authorizes an action against a State official, not the State itself or its
agencies. Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So. 3d at 1141-42.
9
SC-2025-0064

employee only if the claim is asserted against the employee in his or her

individual capacity. See id. at 1142 (noting that the only "exception" to

sovereign immunity that authorizes a claim for damages against a State

employee is the one permitting " 'actions for damages brought against

State officials in their individual capacity where it is alleged that they

had acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority, or in a

mistaken interpretation of law, subject to the limitation that the action

not be, in effect, one against the State' " (emphasis added; citation

omitted)).

It is undisputed that Riche is an employee of the Board; indeed,

McIntosh has conceded in her answer to Riche's petition that, "at all

times relevant to this case, [Riche] was an employee of the Huntsville

City Schools, serving as the 'stadium manager' of Milton Frank Stadium."

Answer, p. vi. It is also clear that McIntosh's claims against Riche are

straightforward claims for damages. Thus, McIntosh's claims against

Riche, to the extent that they have been asserted against him in his

official capacity, are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

McIntosh correctly argues that sovereign immunity does not bar a claim

for damages against a State employee when it is alleged that the

10
SC-2025-0064

employee "acted beyond [his or her] authority, maliciously, fraudulently,

willfully, in bad faith[,] or under a mistaken interpretation of the law,"

id., p. 4, but, as noted, that "exception" to sovereign immunity applies

only when the State employee has been sued in his or her individual

capacity. Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So. 3d at 1142.

Consequently, that argument has no bearing on whether Riche is entitled

to a summary judgment on the official-capacity claims. Having

determined that Riche is entitled to a summary judgment on the official-

capacity claims, we turn to his argument that he is entitled to a summary

judgment on the individual-capacity claims.

II. Individual-Capacity Claims

Riche argues that he is entitled to State-agent immunity with

respect to the claims that McIntosh has asserted against him in his

individual capacity. The test for State-agent immunity was established

by a plurality of this Court in 2000 in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392

(Ala. 2000), and was adopted by a majority of this Court later that year

in Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d 173 (Ala. 2000). In 2014, the Alabama

Legislature codified the test for State-agent immunity with the

enactment of § 36-1-12, which states, in relevant part:

11
SC-2025-0064

"(c) An officer, employee, or agent of the state, including,
but not limited to, an education employee, is immune from
civil liability in his or her personal capacity when the conduct
made the basis of the claim is based upon the agent's doing
any of the following:

"(1) Formulating plans, policies, or designs.

"(2) Exercising his or her judgment in the
administration of a department or agency of
government, including, but not limited to,
examples such as:

"a. Making administrative
adjudications.

"b. Allocating resources.

"c. Negotiating contracts.

"d. Hiring, firing, transferring,
assigning, or supervising personnel.

"(3) Discharging duties imposed on a
department or agency by statute, rule, or
regulation, insofar as the statute, rule, or
regulation prescribes the manner for performing
the duties and the state agent performs the duties
in that manner.

"(4) Exercising judgment in the enforcement
of the criminal laws of the state, including, but not
limited to, law enforcement officers' arresting or
attempting to arrest persons.

"(5) Exercising judgment in the discharge of
duties imposed by statute, rule, or regulation in

12
SC-2025-0064

releasing prisoners, counseling or releasing
persons of unsound mind, or educating students.

"(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), an education
employee, officer, employee, or agent of the state is not
immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity if:

"….

"(2) The education employee, officer,
employee, or agent acts willfully, maliciously,
fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her
authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of
the law."

In Ex parte Estate of Reynolds, 946 So. 2d 450, 452 (Ala. 2006), this

Court stated:

"This Court has established a 'burden-shifting' process
when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity.
Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 So. 2d 1046, 1052 (Ala. 2003). In
order to claim State-agent immunity, a State agent bears the
burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff's claims arise from
a function that would entitle the State agent to immunity.
Giambrone, 874 So. 2d at 1052; Ex parte Wood, 852 So. 2d
705, 709 (Ala. 2002). If the State agent makes such a showing,
the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the State
agent acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith,
or beyond his or her authority. Giambrone, 874 So. 2d at
1052; Wood, 852 So. 2d at 709; Ex parte Davis, 721 So. 2d 685,
689 (Ala. 1998)."

Riche argues that he is entitled to State-agent immunity under

§ 36-1-12(c)(5), which, as noted, provides that an "education employee"

such as Riche is immune from civil liability in his individual capacity for
13
SC-2025-0064

acts that involve "[e]xercising judgment in the discharge of duties

imposed by statute, rule, or regulation in … educating students."4

Although § 36-1-12(c)(5) uses the phrase "educating students," that

phrase is not limited to teachers and administrators or to conduct that

occurs inside a classroom or other teaching environment. Rather,

"Alabama caselaw establishes that employees who work in the

educational system, other than teachers and administrators, are entitled

to State-agent immunity because the performance of jobs in areas other

than the classroom involves the 'supervising and educating of students.' "

Ex parte Mason, 146 So. 3d 9, 13 (Ala. 2013) (emphasis added). See also

Ex parte Trottman, 965 So. 2d 780, 783 (Ala. 2007) ("Educating students

includes not only classroom teaching, but also supervising and educating

students in all aspects of the educational process."). Thus, by way of

example, State-agent immunity has been held to apply to janitors,

secretaries, bus drivers, and maintenance workers who were employed

by a local board of education. See Ex parte Mason, supra.

4Riche also argues that he is entitled to State-agent immunity
under § 36-1-12(c)(2)b. and § 36-1-12(c)(3), but he cites no authority to
support those arguments.
14
SC-2025-0064

In support of his argument that he is entitled to State-agent

immunity, Riche cites 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).

In Louviere, Ossie McDougle, the janitor at an elementary school,

was notified by a student's parent that steam from an underground boiler

pipe was escaping from a hole in the ground outside the school. McDougle

covered the hole with a piece of plywood, notified the principal that he

had done so, and then went about his routine janitorial duties. A few

minutes later, McDougle returned to the hole "to find that the plywood

had been moved" and that a student had been burned by the steam when

she stepped into the hole. 670 So. 2d at 878. The student later sued

McDougle in McDougle's individual capacity, and McDougle moved for a

summary judgment, "claiming discretionary function immunity." Id. at

875. The Mobile Circuit Court granted McDougle's motion, and the

student argued on appeal to this Court that McDougle was not entitled

to immunity because, she said, he had "negligently failed to take

necessary steps to ensure [her] safety after he had notice of the dangerous

15
SC-2025-0064

condition on the school property." Id. at 878. In affirming the summary

judgment, this Court stated:

"McDougle's actions, right or wrong, were discretionary,
because he had had no previous instructions or
responsibilities regarding the heating system, boiler pipes, or
escaping steam. When McDougle placed the plywood over the
hole, he was making personal, discretionary judgments
concerning the appropriate action to take under the
circumstances. Therefore, he was entitled to discretionary
immunity."

Id.

In Bathgate, pigeons had infested a high school, and a student

contracted cryptococcal meningitis after he was exposed to pigeon feces.

The student sued multiple school employees, including Wilton Lowery,

the maintenance engineer for the high school, and Alfred Kearley, the

maintenance supervisor for the school board, alleging that they had

"fail[ed] to prevent an unsafe condition from developing at [the school]."

689 So. 2d at 112. The Mobile Circuit Court entered a summary

judgment in favor of Lowery and Kearley, "finding that [they] were

entitled to discretionary immunity," and the student appealed to the

Court of Civil Appeals. Id. at 111. After noting that Lowery and Kearley

had taken "numerous and repeated actions to deal with the alleged

pigeon infestation," the Court of Civil Appeals stated:
16
SC-2025-0064

"We find that … Wilton Lowery[] and Alfred Kearley
were entitled to discretionary immunity. The actions that
they took regarding the pigeon droppings and the alleged
infestation, whether right or wrong, were based on personal
deliberations. Byrd v. Sullivan, 657 So. 2d 830 (Ala. 1995).
There were no 'hard or fast' rules as to how to handle an
alleged pigeon infestation. Louviere. The trial court did not
err in entering a summary judgment in their favor."

Id. at 112.

Louviere and Bathgate were decided before this Court adopted, and

before the Alabama Legislature codified, the test for State-agent

immunity. Thus, those cases applied the test for discretionary immunity,

"a precursor to State-agent immunity," Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of

Educ., 374 So. 3d 641, 647 (Ala. 2022), and that test provided that

" 'immunity from tort liability [is] afforded to public officials acting within

the general scope of their authority in performing functions that involve

a degree of discretion.' " Ex parte Estate of Reynolds, 946 So. 2d at 454

(citation omitted). However, under the test for State-agent immunity,

"not all discretionary acts by an agent of the State should be labeled as

' "immune." ' " Id. at 456 (quoting Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d at 405).

Rather, State-agent immunity is afforded to a State employee for his or

her discretionary acts only if those acts fit within one of the categories in

§ 36-1-12(c). See Ex parte Rizk, 791 So. 2d 911, 914 (Ala. 2000) (holding
17
SC-2025-0064

that the defendant was not entitled to State-agent immunity because his

conduct "d[id] not fit within any of the categories of immune State-agent

conduct contained in … Cranman").

That said, this Court has cited Louviere and Bathgate as persuasive

authority in a post-Cranman case, i.e., in a State-agent-immunity case.

In Ex parte Mason, supra, George Mason was employed as a bus driver

by the Macon County Board of Education. While driving his route one

afternoon, Mason dropped off a fifth-grade student at what was allegedly

an "[in]appropriate school-bus stopping point," 146 So. 3d at 11, and the

student was struck by an automobile while attempting to cross a four-

lane highway. The student sued Mason in Mason's individual capacity,

and Mason moved for a summary judgment on the basis of State-agent

immunity. Following the denial of his motion, Mason petitioned this

Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that he was entitled to State-

agent immunity because, he said, "the claims against him [were] based

on acts arising from his performance of official duties and exercise of

discretion in supervising students." Id. at 13. This Court agreed with

Mason and, in support of its holding, stated:

"Alabama caselaw establishes that employees who work in
the educational system, other than teachers and
18
SC-2025-0064

administrators, are entitled to State-agent immunity because
the performance of jobs in areas other than the classroom
involves the 'supervising and educating of students.' See
Louviere v. Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 670 So. 2d 873 (Ala.
1995) (recognizing that janitors and steamfitters are entitled
to discretionary immunity); Ex parte Trottman, [965 So. 2d
780 (Ala. 2007)] (recognizing that school secretaries and office
clerical assistants are entitled to State-agent immunity);
Bathgate v. Mobile Cnty. Bd. Sch. Comm'rs, 689 So. 2d 109
(Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (recognizing that maintenance engineers
and facilities managers are entitled to discretionary
immunity); and Lennon v. Petersen, 624 So. 2d 171 (Ala.
1993) (recognizing that athletic trainers are entitled to
discretionary immunity)."

Id. (footnote omitted; emphasis added). See also Ex parte Runnels, 364

So. 3d 979 (Ala. 2022) (citing Louviere as persuasive authority in a State-

agent-immunity case).

As evidenced by the foregoing quote, this Court acknowledged in

Mason that Louviere and Bathgate had been decided under the

discretionary-immunity test, rather than under the test for State-agent

immunity. Nevertheless, the Court cited those cases for the principle

that "the performance of jobs in areas other than the classroom involves

the 'supervising and educating of students.' " Ex parte Mason, 146 So. 3d

at 13 (citation omitted). In other words, the Court indicated that the

janitor's act of covering a hole in the ground in Louviere and the

maintenance workers' attempts to deal with a pigeon infestation in
19
SC-2025-0064

Bathgate were discretionary acts that constituted "the 'supervising and

educating of students,' " even though those defendants were not directly

"supervising" students when they performed those acts. Id. (citation

omitted). That conclusion is sound, too, because, although the defendants

in those cases were not directly "supervising" students, they were

attempting to address dangerous conditions on school property that

students frequently used. Taking actions in an attempt to protect the

safety of students is fairly characterized as "supervising" students, even

if no students happen to be present at that time.

With that said, Riche argues that the analysis in Louviere and

Bathgate is applicable in this case. We agree. 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"

20
SC-2025-0064

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.' " Ex parte Mason, 146 So. 3d at 13 (citation

omitted).

We therefore hold that Riche has carried his burden of

demonstrating that he is entitled to State-agent immunity under § 36-1-

12(c)(5) with respect to the claims that McIntosh has asserted against

him in his individual capacity. Thus, the burden shifts to McIntosh to

demonstrate that Riche "acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad

faith, or beyond his or her authority." Ex parte Estate of Reynolds, 946

So. 2d at 452. In an attempt to carry that burden, McIntosh relies on the

evidence indicating that Riche "knew students would remove warning

cones[] and that wind would blow the sand out of the breaches he

personally filled." Answer, p. xvi. Armed with that evidence, McIntosh

argues that Riche put these warning signs in place "without the follow-

up required to replace sand blown away or cones moved by students," id.

at 2, and, according to McIntosh, Riche's alleged lack of follow-up

21
SC-2025-0064

constituted either "a negligent act beyond reasonableness" or

"wantonness." Id. at xvi, 9.

However, 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) (citations

omitted). See also Ex parte City of Warrior, 369 So. 3d 116, 126 n.9 (Ala.

2022) ("To the extent that Griffin alleges that negligent or wanton

conduct alone falls within the second Ex parte Cranman exception, this

Court has rejected that argument."); and Ex parte Walker, 188 So. 3d

633, 638 (Ala. 2015) (noting that " 'wanton misconduct … does not rise to

the level of willfulness and maliciousness necessary to put [a] State agent

beyond the immunity recognized in Cranman' " (citation omitted)). Thus,

because McIntosh argues that Riche's allegedly tortious acts constituted

only negligence or, at worst, wantonness, she has failed to allege, much

22
SC-2025-0064

less demonstrate, that an exception to State-agent immunity applies in

this case. 5

Conclusion

Riche has demonstrated that he is entitled to sovereign immunity

with respect to the claims that McIntosh has asserted against him in his

official capacity. Riche has also demonstrated that he is entitled to State-

agent immunity with respect to the claims that McIntosh has asserted

against him in his individual capacity, and McIntosh has failed to

demonstrate that an exception to State-agent immunity applies. Thus,

the circuit court erred by denying Riche's motion for a summary

judgment. We therefore grant Riche's petition for a writ of mandamus

and direct the circuit court to enter a summary judgment in his favor.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

5Almost 20 years ago, a former Justice on this Court suggested that

"it may be that the Cranman exception for 'willful' actions should be
construed as including 'wanton' conduct." Ex parte Randall, 971 So. 2d
652, 679 (Ala. 2007) (Murdock, J., dissenting). This Court rejected that
proposition in Ex parte Randall and, in more recent decisions, has
continued to hold that wantonness is not an exception to State-agent
immunity. See, e.g., Ex parte City of Montgomery, supra; Ex parte City
of Warrior, supra; and Ex parte Walker, supra. McIntosh has not asked
us to overturn those decisions.

23
SC-2025-0064

Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook,

and Lewis, JJ., concur.

24